- It wasn’t until the end of the 19th Century and early 20th Century that padding the pocket of the politician to get and keep your job as a “Copper” began to change. Beginning at around 1935 “civil service commissions” became part of the American reformation process of policing. You were appointed based on merit and skill, mostly, and the organized labor movement in the private sector was gaining momentum while getting a foothold in the public venue.
In it’s landmark decision of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) the Warren Court established a balancing test to ensure the First Amendment provisions of an individual while at the same time understanding that government needs to be able to do their job without to much interference. If the public employee were acting as a private citizen when the statements were made, and the issue was of public concern, minus recklessness or falsehoods, then the speech is protected. The Pickering decision stood as the bedrock of public employee speech protections, although challenged repeatedly, until 1983.
In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) the Court ruled in favor Connick, the current D.A. at the time (also the father of singer Harry Connick Jr. – side note) when he fired Myers his assistant for what he presumed to be her disobedience when she circulated a memo in the office challenging a transfer. The Court, looking back at Pickering noted that in Connick there wasn’t a public concern, but rather an internal personal memo that did not raise a public issue. Over the period of fourteen years, the “tone of the Court” seemed to move from being in favor of the public employee to that of being on the side of the public employer. Justice White was noted as saying, “Government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.”
He Said/She Said
What happens when the employee and the employer actually disagree as to what was said? The Court decided on this with Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994). Regarding their First Amendment statements, public employees cannot be fired unless the employer had a “reasonable basis for believing the speech was disruptive or of a private matter.”
Acting in the Private
Why is it that the attorneys are getting themselves in trouble? In this case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) the plaintiff (in my personal view) rightfully questioned the validity of a warrant as an assistant D.A. Internal memos flew around the office and the prosecutor was fired. The Court held that “speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the officials public duties.”
So, what can we deduce from what appears to be the view or direction of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to the First Amendment Right affecting public employees?
1) The Court affirms that public employees never lost that right, but should be cautioned.
2) When balancing if the government can manage their organization as private businesses can versus the speech rights of their employees then the pendulum generally swings in favor of the government.
3) When speaking in the capacity as a public official rather than a private citizen then there is no constitutional insulation and you can be subject to discipline.
In short, be careful what you say, to whom you say it and where; check with your union attorney before you say it and understand that non-verbal expressions are just as powerful as making a verbal statement. At this current point in history, the law is not on our side.
About The Author:
Keith R. Lavery, M.A., CMAS, is a full-time criminal justice educator teaching at a public Career Center, University System of Ohio. He has facilitated and designed criminal justice, security, and law enforcement courses of instruction at the post-secondary level. Keith had a very diverse police career spanning nearly 20 years, working in urban and rural law enforcement settings with assignments ranging from patrol to specialized functions, to include HIDTA Drug Unit, CLANLAB Enforcement Team, SRT and Supervision. In 2008, Keith was awarded the Certified Master Anti-Terrorism designation from the Anti-Terrorism Accreditation Board. Academically, he has completed post-graduate course work dedicated toward a Doctorate in Education. Keith is currently the Law Enforcement Liaison for the Cleveland, Ohio, Chapter of ASIS International.