Antonio 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Wyse v. Department of Pub. Safety, 733 S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tex.App.—Waco 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A. Discretionary v. Ministerial Acts The court of appeals held that because the officers did not have discretion to drive their vehicles without due regard for the safety of others, their actions could not be protected by official immunity. 843 S.W.2d at 149. We disagree; the court’s focus should be on whether the officer is performing a discretionary function, not on whether the officer has discretion to do an allegedly wrongful act while discharging that function. ry duties of peace officers as discretionary); Boozier v. Hambrick, 846 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (“When a police officer reports the misconduct of a 1993) (<HOLDING>); Horta, 4 F.3d at 15 (holding offi cers
holding that a city police officers negligent actions involved in the pursuit of a speeding automobile were entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity