in the case where the district attorney named ceballos found that the serch

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.

Full Answer

Who is Richard Ceballos?

Garcetti is the former Los Angeles District Attorney involved in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Ceballos was an employee in Garcetti's office who wrote a critical memo and alleged retaliation by his employer. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to speech issued as part of the routine duties of public employees.

What was the Supreme Court decision in Ceballos v California?

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant …

Does Ceballos’s right to free speech overtake the district attorney's efficiency interests?

Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case.

What happened to Ceballos in his case?

The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been …

Who was Richard Ceballos?

Richard Ceballos had been employed since 1989 as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney ’s Office, which at the time was headed by Gil Garcetti. After the defense attorney in a pending criminal case contacted Ceballos about his motion to challenge a critical search warrant based on inaccuracies in the supporting affidavit, Ceballos conducted his own investigation and determined that the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations. Ceballos contacted the deputy sheriff who had sworn out the affidavit but was not satisfied by his explanations. Ceballos then communicated his findings to his supervisors and submitted a memorandum in which he recommended dismissal of the case. A meeting was subsequently held to discuss the affidavit with his superiors and officials from the sheriff's department, which Ceballos claimed became heated and accusatory of his role in handling the case. Despite Ceballos’ concerns, his supervisor decided to proceed with the prosecution. The criminal trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which Ceballos was called by the defense to recount his observations about the affidavit. The trial court nevertheless denied the motion and upheld the warrant.

What did Ceballos say about government?

In a telephone interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Ceballos said, "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."

Which Supreme Court case reversed the Ninth Circuit?

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties. The case had been reargued following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as the decision was tied without her; her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, then broke the tie.

Who is the whistleblower lawyer?

The outcry among whistle-blower advocates and First Amendment advocates was particularly extensive. Whistleblower lawyer Stephen M. Kohn called the ruling "the single biggest setback for whistleblowers in the courts in the past 25 years.".

Do public employees speak as citizens?

Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.

Facts of the case

Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case.

Question

Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be protected by the First Amendment simply because it touched on a matter of public concern, or must the speech also be engaged in "as a citizen?"

An L.A. Story

Garcetti arose from the conduct of Richard Ceballos, a calendar deputy for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. The district attorney was Gil Garcetti, who was the Los Angeles County district attorney during the prosecution of O.J. Simpson.

The Court Explains How to Act As a Citizen

Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy adopted the framework of the special concurrence suggested by his former Ninth Circuit colleague.

Blowing the Whistle on Whistle-Blowing Reasoning

Justice Souter was also critical of the Court’s notion that state and federal whistle-blowing statutes make First Amendment protection superfluous.

Application of Garcetti to Scholarship and Classrooms

The Court carefully distanced itself from any implication that its new standard applies to academic scholarship or classroom instruction.