of substantive immunity. The state of Alabama has long embraced the rule of “substantive immunity” as a matter of public policy. Nunnelee v. City of Decatur, 643 So.2d 543 (Ala.1994); see Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (1985). Substantive Immunity “shields [city police] officers from liability in the exercise of their discretionary decision-making functions.” Nunnelee, 643 So.2d at 543. The court has already noted in this opinion that Sanders was behaving well within his discretionary authority when he placed Rose under arrest for disorderly conduct in violation § 13A-11-7 of the Alabama Code (1995), and, therefore, the court finds that Sanders is entitled to substantive immunity against Rose’s claims of false imprisonment. See Lightfoot v. Floyd, 667 So.2d 56 (Ala.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court finds that defendant’s
holding that a videotaped interview between the child and an investigator was admissible holding that a police investigator detaining plaintiff for questioning was exercising a discretionary function holding trunk search was for general exploration not for detaining prisoner or preventing escape holding that videotaped interview between child and investigator was admissible holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning