a judge’s future actions with respect to matters that may come before him, falls within the statute’s prohibitions”). Hence, the matter of whether to “enforce the law against social vices is always before” a police officer like Arneson. Gaio, 81 Cal.App.4th at 930, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 392. So too is the matter of whether to use his position as an LAPD officer-to investigate someone in the Los Angeles area. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (describing law enforcement as the “competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime”). Arneson’s use of his office to investigate someone, via confidential databases or otherwise, necessarily involved a classic type of police “matter”— investigation. See Gaio, 81 Cal.App.4th at 931, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 (<HOLDING>). Arneson’s theory that an act brought before
holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award holdingthat evidence was sufficient to support defendants convictions on rape and aggravated assault charges holding that evidence was sufficient to support bribery convictions because evidence established that payment was given to influence any one or more instances types or courses of official action holding that because evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962c convictions and jury could infer from evidence that defendants each manifested an agreement to participate in enterprises affairs evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962d convictions for rico conspiracy holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees