With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 630-31, 510 A.2d 1078. Here, the police officers were executing the search warrant in connection with an investigation that appellant may be in violation of weapons law; thus the officers were not acting to benefit appellant. Under these circumstances, the absence of “actual malice” and the absence of a “special relationship” between the officers and appellant do not eliminate the officers’ entitlement to governmental immunity, or entitle appellant to a civil cause of action for money damages. Finally, because we are affirming the circuit court’s motion to dismiss as to the two police officers on the basis that appellant failed to plead facts of actual malice, the circuit court correctly granted appellee Baltimore County’s motion for judgment. DiPino, 354 Md. at 48, 729 A.2d 354 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s order

A: holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records
B: holding that inter alia employees criminal conviction for alleged tortious act demonstrated employee was not acting in scope of his employment
C: holding defendants personally liable for alleged conversion even when acting in corporate capacity
D: holding that baltimore city cannot be liable for police officers alleged tortious conduct where the officer was acting in a governmental capacity
D.