state agent conduct in the context of written statements). Adams requested to speak to Narvaez, not the police officer. Narvaez disclosed the information regarding Barnum to Officer Gallegos. While Gallegos acted on the information provided, evidence showed that Adams, unsolicited, repeated the same or similar statements. No right or privilege was violated by the officer’s asking Narvaez what Adams had told him. Adams asserts that Narvaez was an agent of Officer Gallegos and Gallegos illegally obtained her oral statement to Narvaez. However, there are two types of “state agents”: all those who are employed by any state agency are, by definition, “state agents,” but only those who are working for or on behalf of police are law enforcement “state agents.” Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 524 (<HOLDING>). The record demonstrates that Adams offered
holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that cps worker was not in tandem with police officers when interviewing the defendant holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business