California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Randle v. City and County of San Francisco, 186 Cal.App.3d 449, 230 Cal.Rptr. 901 (Cal. App. 1986):
Briscoe v. LaHue primarily addresses the policy concerns underlying witnesses' testimony, with protection from fear of subsequent suit being the means to encourage witnesses to come forward to testify, and to testify candidly. (460 U.S. at pp. 332-334, 103 S.Ct. at pp. 1113-1115.) The court observes, in this connection, that "[a] police officer on the witness stand performs the same functions as any other witness; he is subject to compulsory process, takes an oath, responds to questions on direct examination and cross-examination, and may be prosecuted subsequently for perjury." (460 U.S. at p. 342, 103 S.Ct. at p. 1119.) Accordingly, police officer witnesses are entitled to the same immunity enjoyed by other witnesses. (460 U.S. at pp. 345-346, 103 S.Ct. at pp. 1120-1121.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.