Opinion ID: 787920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Investigation of Parole Violations

Text: 30 Under California's system of parole, a parole agent acts as a law enforcement official when investigating parole violations and executing parole holds. As CDC parole agents, Christian and Rodriguez were peace officers under California law. Cal.Penal Code. § 830.5. Both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have observed that as peace officers, parole officers perform a law enforcement function. People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22, 40, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, 118, 46 P.3d 898, 909 (2002) (quoting Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432, 443-44, 102 S.Ct. 735, 70 L.Ed.2d 677 (1982)). Thus, parole officers act like police officers when they seek to uncover evidence of illegal activity. Scott, 524 U.S. at 369, 118 S.Ct. 2014; see Willis, 28 Cal.4th at 41, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d at 119, 46 P.3d at 910 (explaining that when CDC parole officers investigate crimes they act like police officers (quoting Scott, 524 U.S. at 369, 118 S.Ct. 2014)). 31 We have held that prosecutors are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when performing investigatory or administrative functions, or [when] essentially functioning as a police officer or detective. Broam, 320 F.3d at 1028. Given that prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity when performing investigatory or law enforcement functions, we hold that parole officers cannot be entitled to absolute immunity when performing the same functions. Therefore, since Christian and Rodriguez were performing a law enforcement function while investigating Swift's alleged parole violations, they are not entitled to absolute immunity for this conduct.