as jail administrators, are county officials. See Streit, 236 F.3d at 565. So holding, the court relied heavily on the constitutionally and statutorily defined role of California sheriffs discussed above. Streit, 236 F.3d at 561-562; see supra p. 906-908. In support of our conclusion, we also rely on several recent federal district court decisions that hold that the sheriff is properly viewed as a county officer when he investigates alleged criminal conduct. See Ford v. County of Marin, 2001 WL 868877 at *8 (N.D.Cal. July 19, 2001) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the sheriff, when knowingly giving false information to the Housing Authority with the intent of initiating a nuisance lawsuit, did not act as a state officer); Brewster, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1191 (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note persuasive language from the
holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under  14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity holding that the sheriff when investigating crimes acts as a county officer holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding that the lehigh county sheriff is a county officer rather than a state officer holding county liable along with sheriff thomas for an attorneys fee award even though the county was not named in the suit and was denied an opportunity to intervene because sheriff thomass actions under article 6869 represented county policy