between discretionary and minis terial acts is an important one. The clear purpose of such a distinction is to allow public officials the freedom to make discretionary decisions according to their best judgment, without undue influence from a fear of personal liability; this protection, however, is qualified in that officials will be subject to liability for actions performed with malicious intent. There is no similar need for protection when performing actions that are strictly mandatory and for which no discretion is involved. In these situations, public officials are appropriately held personally liable if their conduct is not in accordance with the applicable rules or instructions governing the functions they are performing. See James, 288 Md. at 328, 418 A.2d at 1180-81 (<HOLDING>). Because we consider this reasoning
holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that the driver of an emergency vehicle is not entitled to receive qualified public official immunity because the normal operation of a vehicle including those on an emergency mission is not ordinarily a discretionary act for which immunity will shield the driver from liability for negligence holding that qualified immunity is designed to shield from liability all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law  holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity