Can a city police officer investigate suspected wrongdoing in the city?

Turning to the alleged acts of the police officers, it is the duty of a police officer to investigate suspected wrongdoing in the city, whether it be that of a citizen or of the chief of police, and where the chief is involved it is the officer's duty to deliver any evidence he obtains to the district attorney or the Attorney General, he certainly cannot be expected to give it to the chief. As in the case of the mayor, a policeman [11 Cal.App.3d 347] cannot perform this duty unless he has the power to act, and the fact the police officers conspired with third persons who were not police officers, indeed were not public employees at all, in making an investigation and furnishing information to the Attorney General, does not place their actions outside the scope of their official authority or power. (See Hardy v. Vial, supra.)

We emphasize that up to this point our discussion has been limited solely to whether defendants acted within the scope of their authority or power in committing the acts alleged in the amended complaint, which allegations we accept as true in measuring them against the general demurrers. We conclude that, in view of the broad language in Hardy v. Vial, Supra, defendant mayor and defendant policemen were acting within the 'scope of official duties.' That conclusion, however, does no more than place defendants' actions within the scope of their duties and of their power or authority; it does not settle the question whether they were clothed with discretionary immunity.