In Hansen v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, a retired employee sued his former employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), alleging CDCR took retaliatory action against him as a whistleblower, in violation of a Labor Code statute, causing him emotional distress and violating his constitutional rights. The trial court found the complaint arose out of activities protected by section 425.16. Those activities were (1) an internal affairs investigation, which continued after the employee retired, investigating alleged criminal activity during the employment, and (2) acquisition of a search warrant. No criminal charges were ever filed. (Id. at p. 1541.) In addition to holding the search warrant was an activity protected by section 425.16, the Hansen court continued, "Further, the internal investigation itself was an official proceeding authorized by law. (Green v. Cortez (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1068, 1073.) Thus, the objected-to statements and writings, i.e., the allegedly false reports of criminal activity, were made in connection with an issue under consideration by an authorized official proceeding and thus constitute protected activity under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2). Although Hansen was never formally charged with misconduct or a crime, communications preparatory to or in anticipation of the bringing of an official proceeding are within the protection of section 425.16. " (Hansen, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1544.)