Anderson v. Geist, 236 Cal. App. 4th 79

Background

Connie Anderson sued San Bernardino sheriff’s deputies (Geist and Shelton) alleging unlawful entries (Dec 25 and Dec 30, 2010) seeking to arrest her daughter and that deputies made defamatory statements to neighbors.
Anderson alleged the bench warrant for her daughter had been recalled Dec 23, 2010; defendants produced evidence the warrant was actually recalled Dec 30, 2010 after the daughter’s arrest and that an appellate stay had been faxed to the sheriff but deputies were not shown to have known of it.
The complaint included 10 causes of action: illegal search/seizure, §1983, tort under Gov. Code §815.3, slander/defamation, negligent supervision, failure to protect, IIED, property damage, conversion, etc.
Deputies filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc. §425.16; the trial court denied the motion for lack of supporting declarations and because defendants failed to show the claims arose from protected petition/free‑speech activity.
On appeal, the central question presented was whether a peace officer’s execution of an arrest warrant constitutes "protected activity" under the anti‑SLAPP statute (particularly §425.16(e)(4)). The Court of Appeal addressed the issue as one of first impression and affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether execution of an arrest warrant is "protected activity" under the anti‑SLAPP statute	Anderson implicitly: claims arise from nonprotected conduct (unlawful entries/defamation)	Deputies: executing a warrant furthers criminal prosecution and is conduct in furtherance of petitioning/free speech under §425.16(e)(4)	Execution of a warrant is not protected activity under §425.16(e)(4) in these circumstances; anti‑SLAPP threshold not met
Whether alleged defamatory remarks during warrant execution are protected by anti‑SLAPP (subds. (e)(1)–(3))	Anderson: statements were part of nonprotected on‑site conduct, not preparatory to litigation or public discussion	Deputies: statements made in connection with official proceedings or public interest and thus protected	Court held statements were not shown to be made to achieve litigation objectives or involve an issue of public interest, so not covered by subdivisions (e)(1)–(3)

Key Cases Cited

Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (2006) (anti‑SLAPP statute construed broadly to protect petition and free speech)
Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP burden framework)
Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) (plaintiff must show probability of prevailing; review accepts plaintiff’s evidence as true)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (defendant must show claim arises from protected activity under §425.16(e))
Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal.App.4th 832 (2001) (anti‑SLAPP merits evaluated via summary‑judgment‑like procedure)
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (procedural guidance on anti‑SLAPP adjudication)
Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (2007) (opposing party must present admissible evidence, not mere allegations)
Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco, 168 Cal.App.4th 992 (2008) (government communications to prosecutors can be protected petitioning activity)
Kemps v. Beshwate, 180 Cal.App.4th 1012 (2009) (procurement/application for a warrant is protected petitioning activity)
Bradbury v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1996) (public reports from official investigations are protected activity)
Barnett v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 200 Cal.App.4th 536 (2011) (search/warrant viewed as a court order, not discretionary conduct)
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1337 (2007) (protected conduct under §425.16(e)(4) must concern a topic of public interest)
Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (1990) (litigation privilege requires communications be aimed to achieve litigation objectives)