governmental decisions in the public’s best interests.” United States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078, 1086 (11th Cir. 2006). Likewise, “police have a duty to protect both the lives and the property of citizens.” United States v. Markland, 635 F.2d 174, 176 (2d Cir.1980). The law then grants officers the authority to arrest, detain, and use force to fulfill these essential responsibilities. Given these publicly oriented responsibilities, law enforcement officers — retired and active alike — are “not to be equated with a private person engaged in routine public employment or other common occupations of the community.” Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 298, 98 S.Ct. 1067, 55 L.Ed.2d 287 (1978); see also Peña v. Lindley, No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL 854684, at *17 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) (<HOLDING>); Shew, 994 F.Supp.2d at 252 (same); cf.
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding police officer is a public official holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice holding that the first amendment does not protect the use of racial invective by a public official against a member of the public in a bar holding that police officers charge to protect the public differentiated them from the public