context: In Ray, the court held that that a probation officer was not absolutely immune for damages resulting from an arrest caused by a false parole violator's warrant. Similarly, courts have found that probation officers are not entitled to absolute immunity in investigating and apprehending probation violators.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 691 F.2d 270, 271-72
citation_a.parenthetical: parole officers entitled to qualified immunity with respect to arrest of parolee
citation_a.sentence: See also Crooker v. Metallo, 5 F.3d 583, 585 (1st Cir.1993) (parole officer received qualified immunity with respect to claim of unreasonable search); Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (state probation officer not entitled to absolute immunity for causing mistaken arrest of probationer), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949, 104 S.Ct. 2150, 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984); Wolfel v. Sanborn, 691 F.2d 270, 271-72 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (parole officers entitled to qualified immunity with respect to arrest of parolee), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1115, 103 S.Ct. 751, 74 L.Ed.2d 969 (1983).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 815 F.2d 8, 8
citation_b.parenthetical: stating in dictum that parole officers not entitled to absolute immunity when functioning as arresting officers
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Johnson, 815 F.2d at 8 (stating in dictum that parole officers not entitled to absolute immunity when functioning as arresting officers).