With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979). A state actor, such as a law enforcement officer, is entitled to qualified immunity in an action filed under § 1983 if his or her conduct during a criminal investigation either does not violate a federal constitutional right, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). A state prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from liability un 992) (<HOLDING>); Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F.2d 533, 535 (9th

A: holding that when prosecutors who after conviction of criminal defendant acting solely as investigators acquired and withheld exculpatory evidence after their role in the prosecution had ended are not entitled to any more immunity than the defendant police officers
B: holding that the defendant who is the same defendant as in this case clearly is entitled to headofstate immunity
C: recognizing that withholding of exculpatory evidence by police is imputed to the prosecution
D: holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment
A.