How have courts dealt with the issue of conspiracy to fabricate false evidence against a public official?

Two cases illustrate this principle: In Burgdorf v. Funder, Supra, 246 Cal.App.2d 443, 54 Cal.Rptr. 805, the defendant was chief of the division of tax collection and refund of the state controller's office. It was alleged that he libeled the plaintiff in a letter which became a public document when he advised the plaintiff that an audit had disclosed that the plaintiff had failed to maintain records of fuel usage as a basis

Page 121

In Meester v. Davies, Supra, 11 Cal.App.3d 342, 89 Cal.Rptr. 711, the complaint alleged that the defendant mayor of Modesto and three defendant police officers of that city conspired with each other and with a newspaper editor and the district attorney of Stanislaus County to falsely accuse the plaintiff, the police chief of Modesto, of criminal acts and that they knowingly furnished false evidence to the attorney general, all of which caused plaintiff to be indicted by the grand jury on four felonies. Plaintiff contended that his action did not come within the claim filing requirements of the Tort Claims Act because the mayor and the three police officers were not acting within the scope of their employment when they conspired with and gave false information to third persons who were not employees of the city. The reviewing court disagreed, holding first as to the mayor that it was his duty to seek the dismissal of any city employee including the chief-of-police, who he believed was unsatisfactorily performing his duties; hence, the mayor was acting within the power of his office in seeking to terminate the chief's employment. The court relied on Hardy v. Vial, Supra, 48 Cal.2d 577, 311 P.2d 494 in also holding that the mayor's conspiracy with third persons who were not public employees to persent false evidence against the plaintiff did not remove the mayor's acts from the field of his authority. As to the police officers, the court held that it was the duty of the officers to investigate suspected wrongdoing in the city, and if their chief was involved, to deliver the evidence to the attorney general. Because the purpose of the officers' conduct was within their authority the fact that they gave false information to outsiders did not remove the conduct from the scope of their employment.