Case Summary

3382 REVIEW DENIED The federal doctrine of qualified immunity shields public employees from liability under the Civil Rights Act if they could reasonably have believed their actions were consistent with plaintiff’s rights, and so it protects a public officer enforcing a warrant, but the federal rule does not protect governmental entities; Government Code section 820.2 gives public employees immunity for making basic policy decisions and so protects a community development director who declared a property to be a public nuisance, but does not protect an officer ministerially enforcing that decision; section 821.8 protects public employees against liability for entry onto property under authority of law, but not against liability for converting personal property; section 820.4 provides public employees with immunity for exercising due care in the execution or enforcement of any law, so an officer executing a warrant expressly authorizing entry onto realty is immune from liability for trespass, but if questions of fact exist as to whether s/he exercised due care as to personal property on the premises, s/he is not immune from liability for conversion.

OGBORN v CITY OF LANCASTER (Nuisance Abatement) 101 CA4 448 [See: 42 USC 1983, 1985; Anderson v Creighton 483 US 635; Asgari v City 15 C4 744, T/AT 7/97; Johnson v State 69 C2 782]