their time, talents, and assets to achieve the greatest overall good. Keehn, 834 P.2d at 116. This language captures a recognition that the proper planning and implementation of a viable system of law enforcement for any governmental entity must involve the exercise of discretionary powers at several levels, including those exercised by judges, prosecutors, arresting officers, and other officials in the justice system. Everton, 468 So.2d 936. It is indeed appropriate to strike a balance between detrimental interference with the provision of this essential public service and the natural desire to compensate victims of officials’ wrongdoing. Cynthia Zellner MacKinnon, Note, Negligence of Municipal Employees: Redefining the Scope of Police Liability, 35 U.Fla.L.Rev. 720 (Fall 1983) (<HOLDING>). The officer may not perform those
holding qualified immunity unavailable because there was no government interest to balance holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions recognizing that supreme court has not clearly explained role of discretionary functions in qualified immunity analysis recognizing the qualified immunity from liability extended to a police officer in performing discretionary functions achieves this balance holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit