◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 113 prosecutor in the role of an administrator or investiga- tive officer rather than an advocate. Ilere charges were being made following the raid that the police and Hanrahan were guilty of murder and genocide. Demon- Strations occurred and there was tension in the com- munity. Under these circumstances it appears to me to have been well within the prosecutorial authority and duty of this public official charged with the enforcement of the criminal law in his county to take the steps that he did in defense of the system of law administration. Hanrahan’s concept of this duty was thus stated: I had a- public responsibility as the chief prosecuting officer in Cook County to do everything possible to preserve the peace and to prevent an outbreak of violence. I saw that coming as a result of what I described as the press orgy, the ac- cusations of murder and unlawful conduct, and I ‘did not feel that there had been clear and accurate reporting of the accounts given by the officers. Vociferous denunciations of the police conduct by those supporting the Panthers, as an aftermath of the raid does not mean that Hanrahan was. not entitled to believe those who were involved in the law enforcement activities of the county. It appears to be a frequent prac- tice today when steps are taken to enforce the law that the one charged attempts to divert attention from his own malfeasance by asserting that his constitutional rights have been violated. The involvement here in public statements and media publicity was of a far less egregious nature than that which has been involved in cases of absolute immunity where prosecutors were engaged directly in the prosecutorial process. The conduct here was so intimate- ly interrelated with the prosecutorial process that it Should have the same protection. As the Court pointed out in Jmbler, at 425, “Frequently acting under serious constraints of time and even information, a prosecutor inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional] deprivation.” That is what has happened here in my opinion, ,and, again quoting the Court, at 426, “The affording of only a