law enforcement privileges: The distinction turns on the qualitative difference between an immunity and a privilege. Unlike an immunity, which affects liability but does not diminish the tort, a privilege protects the actor from a finding of tortious conduct. Put another way, an immunity insulates an individual from liability for public policy reasons, even when that individual has engaged in conduct that would otherwise be actionable. By contrast, a privilege recognizes that, because of the nature of their duties, some public officers may perform certain acts that might otherwise be tortious if committed by someone not having those duties. Garza, 881 F.Supp. at 1106 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Andrade v. United States, 116 F.Supp.2d 778, 787-89 (W.D.Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>); McElroy v. United States, 861 F.Supp. 585,
holding that fbi agents interpretations of codefendants conversations were inadmissible under fedrevid 701 holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan holding that the plaintiffs ftca claims failed because the fbi agents were privileged to use reasonable force under texas law holding that a federal drug informant acting under the partial direction of the fbi and for pay was not a federal employee under the ftca