contrary to the actor’s duty, and (3) intended to be injurious to another.” Wilcox v. City of Asheville, 222 N.C. App. 285, 289, 730 S.E.2d 226, 230 (2012), appeal dismissed and disc, review denied, 366 N.C. 574, 738 S.E.2d 363, 401 (2013). Regarding whether Officer Funk acted contrary to his duty, the majority concludes that under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Funk’s mistaken belief that plaintiff was Mr. Fearrington was reasonable and, therefore, plaintiff’s arrest was not contrary to Officer Funk’s duty. I disagree. Whether a police officer has acted contrary to his duty when arresting an individual is determined by whether the officer has complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401 (2013) and the Fourth Amendment. See Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 746 (4th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>); Glenn-Robinson v. Acker, 140 N.C. App. 606,
holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that arrest was unsupported by probable cause but granting qualified immunity to defendants who made the arrest in reliance on communications with other officers holding officer not entitled to public official immunity for false arrest claim when arrest not in accordance with nc gen stat  15a401 and contrary to officers duty holding that unlike malicious prosecution claim false arrest claim accrues on the date of the arrest holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest