A Skagit deputy was summoned to the court and told, “[h]e needs to go to jail,” by the judge. The deputy was escorting him to jail when the man broke free, and was injured when laid out by court security. At issue was whether judicial immunity shielded the deputy and the security officer from tort liability. Immunity is generally applicable in the administration of a judicial function. The supreme court phrased the issue as whether judges normally escort people to jail, which they do not.
However, the issue, as it seems to me, is whether judges normally direct prisoners be taken into custody, which it seems they do. And actually taking them into custody is administration of that judicial function.
I am not one known for being conservative, by any stretch of the imagination. This time I think the court got it plain wrong.