In Anderson v. Geist, published April 22, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2, affirmed a trial court order denying an Anti-SLAPP special motion to strike that defendant sheriff's deputies brought against a pro per plaintiff's complaint. The deputies allegedly unlawfully entered the plaintiff's residence twice, attempting to arrest the plaintiff's daughter on a bench warrant that had been recalled or suspended. During their attempts, the deputies allegedly told neighbors that everyone who lived in the residence was a liar and a criminal. The plaintiff brought several causes of action against the deputies, including defamation and slander.
On an issue of first impression, the appellate court ruled that the act of executing an arrest warrant is not protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP suit, at least under the circumstances of the case. Although it is an act in furtherance of criminal prosecution, it is not an exercise of rights by the police officer; it is a mandatory duty performed at the direction of the court. Because police officers have no discretion in whether to execute it, it is unlikely that the threat of lawsuits will chill that activity. Further, the activity does not contribute to public discussion of a topic of public interest. The alleged statements to the neighbors are not protected, because they were not made in a judicial proceeding or in preparation for litigation, particularly when they are not made about the persons who are the target of a criminal investigation. Although the officers may ultimately be found immune, they must address the lawsuit through vehicles other than an Anti-SLAPP motion.
Comments