Page:Martinez v Gonzales,pdf.pdf/3

 judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Similarly, the district court determined that Deputies Webb and Nissen were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for their role in attempting to execute the facially valid bench warrant.'' See Valdez v. City & Cty. of Denver'', 878 F.2d 1285, 1286 (10th Cir. 1989) ("[O]fficial[s] charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy[] absolute immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct prescribed by that order.").

The court concluded that Officer Garcia was also entitled to quasi-judicial immunity to the extent he was charged with stopping and arresting Ms. Martinez pursuant to the warrant, see id., and to qualified immunity to the extent he wascharged with using excessive force and falsely arresting Mr. Romero, see Coen v. Runner, 854 F.2d 374, 377 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.”).

Finally, the court rejected appellants’ claim that Officer Garcia had unlawfully searched and seized Mr. Romero following his arrest. It reasoned that, because his arrest was lawful, the search and seizure incident to his arrest were lawful as well. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973) (holding that where there is a lawful arrest supported by probable cause, “a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification"). 3