Opinion ID: 1455295
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statutory Immunity on the California Constitutional Claim

Text: The City and the Department contend that they are shielded from liability on the California constitutional claim. We conclude that the district court correctly determined that the City and the Department are not protected by statutory immunity. California Government Code section 821.6 provides that [a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause. The policy behind section 821.6 is to encourage fearless performance of official duties. State officers and employees are encouraged to investigate and prosecute matters within their purview without fear of reprisal from the person or entity harmed thereby. Shoemaker v. Myers, 2 Cal. App.4th 1407, 1424, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 (1992) (citations omitted). Immunity also extends to actions taken in preparation for formal proceedings. Because investigation is an essential step toward the institution of formal proceedings, it is also cloaked with immunity. Amylou R. v. County of Riverside, 28 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209-10, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Chief Scharf ordered an investigation in the ordinary sense of the word, the investigation never could have led to a judicial or administrative proceeding because Lieutenant Duke's informal policy permitted officers to use the pagers for personal purposes and to exceed the 25,000 character limit. Thus, Quon could have committed no misconduct, a prerequisite for a formal proceeding against him. As such, the City's and Department's conduct does not fall within California Government Code section 821.6, and they are not entitled to statutory immunity.