Government Employees and Officials Should Heed Limits of the Statute’s Protections

The anti-SLAPP process can be successfully deployed by government entities, officials and employees in fending off lawsuits brought against them in connection with the exercise of their governmental obligations and responsibilities, but there are limits to the reach in this particular defense against suit.

A recent Fourth District Court of Appeal decision explored this issue. The decision came in a case stemming from two San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies serving a search warrant. The deputies twice entered Connie Anderson’s residence seeking to execute a warrant for her daughter’s arrest. While doing so, they allegedly told neighbors that Anderson’s household members were all “liars and criminals.” In response, Anderson sued the deputies, the Sheriff and San Bernardino County for illegal search and seizure, slander and related causes of action.

The court said that, while execution of an arrest warrant is “an act in furtherance of a criminal prosecution,” that does not necessarily make it “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition” within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court noted that the warrant’s execution is not an exercise of rights by the peace officer; it is the performance of a mandatory duty, at the direction of a court.

The appellate court further noted that, to qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute, the conduct must be “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” — that is, it must “concern a topic of widespread public interest and contribute in some manner to a public discussion of the topic.” Here, the deputies failed to make any argument as to why their execution of a warrant in the circumstances of this case — a routine misdemeanor warrant in a case that apparently attracted precisely zero public interest or discussion — might meet such a standard.