Does the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 425.16, subdivision (e) of the California Anti-SLPP Act protect a police officer who makes a statement on his own behalf?

⁷We also note that the anti-SLAPP statute's protection of private citizens who make statements in furtherance of their First Amendment rights of petition and speech derives from the overarching purpose of facilitating public participation in judicial proceedings and other matters of public concern. If a statement by a private citizen is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute to further that statutory purpose, the same statement made by a police officer on behalf of that private citizen should also be protected to further the statutory purpose. (See Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1116, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564 [ 425.16 does not require a defendant to show that its protected statement was made on its own behalf]; Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1398-1399, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 [ 425.16 applied to lawsuit challenging defendant's statements in handling administrative grievance proceeding, where defendant was acting in furtherance of the employee's right to petition, not her own].) Our reliance on the language of section 425.16, subdivision (e), thus satisfies the aim of the anti-SLAPP statute to further First Amendment rights of free speech and petition.