home

Supreme Court to Hear Whistle-Blower Case

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:58:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a proseuctor who was demoted after recommending dismissal of a case because he believed a deputy sheriff had lied on a search warrant affidavit.

At issue is the scope of the First Amendment, which protects government workers from discharge if their conduct involves a "public concern" rather than personal, job-related issues such as salary. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ceballos' speech was constitutionally protected and the district attorney's office didn't have immunity from Ceballos' lawsuit.

"When government employees speak about corruption, wrongdoing, misconduct, wastefulness or inefficiency by other government employees, including law enforcement officers, their speech is inherently a matter of public concern," the appeals court stated. "His interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption," it said.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473 [link via How Appealing ]

< More than 500,000 Vets to be Homeless This Year | Video of Chris Rock's Opening Monologue Now Up >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court to Hear Whistle-Blower Case | 2 comments (2 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Whistle-Blower Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    This seems to be a slam-dunk against the legendary Gil Garcetti. Am I the only one who worries that the reason the court agreed to take it on is to find some reason to overturn the decision and remove protections?

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Whistle-Blower Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    I fear Ken is right. Every lawyer takes an oath, this prosecutor took it seriously. Isn't that what we want? How do the Supremes expect the public to take the law seriously if they rule that it's hand servants will be punished if they take it seriously.

    Supreme Court to Hear Whistle-Blower Case | 2 comments (2 topical)