From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of San Diego v. Roe

U.S.
Dec 6, 2004
543 U.S. 77 (2004)

Summary

holding that reliance on NTEU “was seriously misplaced” when plaintiff deliberately linked speech to public employment

Summary of this case from Craig v. Rich Twp. High Sch. Dist. 227

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 03-1669.

Decided December 6, 2004.

Respondent Roe brought suit alleging, inter alia, that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech were violated when the city of San Diego (City) terminated his employment as a police officer, for selling police paraphernalia and videotapes of himself engaging in sexually explicit acts. A Federal District Court granted the City's motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Roe's conduct fell within the protected category of citizen commentary on matters of public concern.

Held: The City was not barred from terminating Roe. While a government employer may impose restraints on employee speech, the employees have the right to speak on matters of public concern, typically those concerning government policies of interest to the public at large, see Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138; Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563. And when they speak or write on their own time on a topic unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent a governmental justification "far stronger than mere speculation" for regulating it. United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454, 465, 475 ( NTEU). Roe's case falls outside the protection afforded by NTEU. Although his activities took place outside the workplace and purported to be about subjects not related to his employment, the City's police department demonstrated that its legitimate and substantial interests were compromised by his speech, and Roe took deliberate steps to link his videos and other wares to his police work. Instead, the case is governed by Pickering, which established a balancing test to reconcile an employee's right to engage in speech and the government employer's right to protect its legitimate concerns, and Connick, which set out a threshold test for determining when Pickering balancing is merited. Because Roe's expression does not qualify as a matter of public concern as this Court's cases have understood that term, he fails the threshold test and Pickering's balancing test does not come into play.

Certiorari granted; 356 F. 3d 1108, reversed.


The city of San Diego (City), a petitioner here, terminated a police officer, respondent, for selling videotapes he made and for related activity. The tapes showed respondent engaging in sexually explicit acts. Respondent brought suit alleging, among other things, that the termination violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the City's motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

I

Respondent John Roe, a San Diego police officer, made a video showing himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. He sold the video on the adults-only section of eBay, the popular online auction site. His username was "Code3stud@aol.com." a wordplay on a high priority police radio call. 356 F. 3d 1108, 1110 (CA9 2004). The uniform apparently was not the specific uniform worn by the San Diego police, but it was clearly identifiable as a police uniform. Roe also sold custom videos, as well as police equipment, including official uniforms of the San Diego Police Department (SDPD), and various other items such as men's underwear. Roe's eBay user profile identified him as employed in the field of law enforcement.

Roe's supervisor, a police sergeant, discovered Roe's activities when, while on eBay, he came across an official SDPD police uniform for sale offered by an individual with the user-name "Code3stud@aol.com." He searched for other items Code3stud offered and discovered listings for Roe's videos depicting the objectionable material. Recognizing Roe's picture, the sergeant printed images of certain of Roe's offerings and shared them with others in Roe's chain of command, including a police captain. The captain notified the SDPD's internal affairs department, which began an investigation. In response to a request by an undercover officer, Roe produced a custom video. It showed Roe, again in police uniform, issuing a traffic citation but revoking it after undoing the uniform and masturbating.

The investigation revealed that Roe's conduct violated specific SDPD policies, including conduct unbecoming of an officer, outside employment, and immoral conduct. When confronted, Roe admitted to selling the videos and police paraphernalia. The SDPD ordered Roe to "cease displaying, manufacturing, distributing or selling any sexually explicit materials or engaging in any similar behaviors, via the internet, U.S. Mail, commercial vendors or distributors, or any other medium available to the public." Id., at 1111 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Roe removed some of the items he had offered for sale, he did not change his seller's profile, which described the first two videos he had produced and listed their prices as well as the prices for custom videos. After discovering Roe's failure to follow its orders, the SDPD — citing Roe for the added violation of disobedience of lawful orders — began termination proceedings. The proceedings resulted in Roe's dismissal from the police force.

Roe brought suit in the District Court pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the employment termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In granting the City's motion to dismiss, the District Court decided that Roe had not demonstrated that selling official police uniforms and producing, marketing, and selling sexually explicit videos for profit qualified as expression relating to a matter of "public concern" under this Court's decision in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held Roe's conduct fell within the protected category of citizen commentary on matters of public concern. Central to the Court of Appeals' conclusion was that Roe's expression was not an internal work-place grievance, took place while he was off duty and away from his employer's premises, and was unrelated to his employment. 356 F. 3d, at 1110, 1113-1114.

II

A government employee does not relinquish all First Amendment rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of his or her employment. See, e.g., Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 605-606 (1967). On the other hand, a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on the speech of its employees, restraints that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. The Court has recognized the right of employees to speak on matters of public concern, typically matters concerning government policies that are of interest to the public at large, a subject on which public employees are uniquely qualified to comment. See Connick, supra; Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Outside of this category, the Court has held that when government employees speak or write on their own time on topics unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent some governmental justification "far stronger than mere speculation" in regulating it. United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, 465, 475 (1995) ( NTEU). We have little difficulty in concluding that the City was not barred from terminating Roe under either line of cases.

A

In concluding that Roe's activities qualified as a matter of public concern, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the Court's decision in NTEU. 356 F. 3d, at 1117. In NTEU it was established that the speech was unrelated to the employment and had no effect on the mission and purpose of the employer. The question was whether the Federal Government could impose certain monetary limitations on outside earnings from speaking or writing on a class of federal employees. The Court held that, within the particular classification of employment, the Government had shown no justification for the outside salary limitations. The First Amendment right of the employees sufficed to invalidate the restrictions on the outside earnings for such activities. The Court noted that throughout history public employees who undertook to write or to speak in their spare time had made substantial contributions to literature and art, 513 U.S., at 465, and observed that none of the speech at issue "even arguably [had] any adverse impact" on the employer, ibid.

The Court of Appeals' reliance on NTEU was seriously misplaced. Although Roe's activities took place outside the workplace and purported to be about subjects not related to his employment, the SDPD demonstrated legitimate and substantial interests of its own that were compromised by his speech. Far from confining his activities to speech unrelated to his employment, Roe took deliberate steps to link his videos and other wares to his police work, all in a way injurious to his employer. The use of the uniform, the law enforcement reference in the Web site, the listing of the speaker as "in the field of law enforcement," and the debased parody of an officer performing indecent acts while in the course of official duties brought the mission of the employer and the professionalism of its officers into serious disrepute. 356 F. 3d, at 1111 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court of Appeals noted the City conceded Roe's activities were "unrelated" to his employment. Id., at 1112, n. 4. In the context of the pleadings and arguments, the proper interpretation of the City's statement is simply to underscore the obvious proposition that Roe's speech was not a comment on the workings or functioning of the SDPD. It is quite a different question whether the speech was detrimental to the SDPD. On that score the City's consistent position has been that the speech is contrary to its regulations and harmful to the proper functioning of the police force. The present case falls outside the protection afforded in NTEU. The authorities that instead control, and which are considered below, are this Court's decisions in Pickering, supra, Connick, 461 U.S. 138, and the decisions which follow them.

B

To reconcile the employee's right to engage in speech and the government employer's right to protect its own legitimate interests in performing its mission, the Pickering Court adopted a balancing test. It requires a court evaluating restraints on a public employee's speech to balance "the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." 391 U.S., at 568; see also Connick, supra, at 142.

Underlying the decision in Pickering is the recognition that public employees are often the members of the community who are likely to have informed opinions as to the operations of their public employers, operations which are of substantial concern to the public. Were they not able to speak on these matters, the community would be deprived of informed opinions on important public issues. See 391 U.S., at 572. The interest at stake is as much the public's interest in receiving informed opinion as it is the employee's own right to disseminate it.

Pickering did not hold that any and all statements by a public employee are entitled to balancing. To require Pickering balancing in every case where speech by a public employee is at issue, no matter the content of the speech, could compromise the proper functioning of government offices. See Connick, supra, at 143. This concern prompted the Court in Connick to explain a threshold inquiry (implicit in Pickering itself) that in order to merit Pickering balancing, a public employee's speech must touch on a matter of "public concern." 461 U.S., at 143 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In Connick, an assistant district attorney, unhappy with her supervisor's decision to transfer her to another division, circulated an intraoffice questionnaire. The document solicited her co-workers' views on, inter alia, office transfer policy, office morale, the need for grievance committees, the level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns. See id., at 141.

Finding that — with the exception of the final question — the questionnaire touched not on matters of public concern but on internal workplace grievances, the Court held no Pickering balancing was required. 461 U.S., at 141. To conclude otherwise would ignore the "commonsense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter." Id., at 143. Connick held that a public employee's speech is entitled to Pickering balancing only when the employee speaks "as a citizen upon matters of public concern" rather than "as an employee upon matters only of personal interest." 461 U. S., at 147.

Although the boundaries of the public concern test are not well defined, Connick provides some guidance. It directs courts to examine the "content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record" in assessing whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern. Id., at 146-147. In addition, it notes that the standard for determining whether expression is of public concern is the same standard used to determine whether a common-law action for invasion of privacy is present. Id., at 143, n. 5. That standard is established by our decisions in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), and Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-388 (1967). These cases make clear that public concern is something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication. The Court has also recognized that certain private remarks, such as negative comments about the President of the United States, touch on matters of public concern and should thus be subject to Pickering balancing. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987).

Applying these principles to the instant case, there is no difficulty in concluding that Roe's expression does not qualify as a matter of public concern under any view of the public concern test. He fails the threshold test and Pickering balancing does not come into play.

Connick is controlling precedent, but to show why this is not a close case it is instructive to note that even under the view expressed by the dissent in Connick from four Members of the Court, the speech here would not come within the definition of a matter of public concern. The dissent in Connick would have held that the entirety of the questionnaire circulated by the employee "discussed subjects that could reasonably be expected to be of interest to persons seeking to develop informed opinions about the manner in which . . . an elected official charged with managing a vital governmental agency, discharges his responsibilities." 461 U. S., at 163 (opinion of Brennan, J.). No similar purpose could be attributed to the employee's speech in the present case. Roe's activities did nothing to inform the public about any aspect of the SDPD's functioning or operation. Nor were Roe's activities anything like the private remarks at issue in Rankin, where one co-worker commented to another co-worker on an item of political news. Roe's expression was widely broadcast, linked to his official status as a police officer, and designed to exploit his employer's image.

The speech in question was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer. There is no basis for finding that it was of concern to the community as the Court's cases have understood that term in the context of restrictions by governmental entities on the speech of their employees.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.


Summaries of

City of San Diego v. Roe

U.S.
Dec 6, 2004
543 U.S. 77 (2004)

holding that reliance on NTEU “was seriously misplaced” when plaintiff deliberately linked speech to public employment

Summary of this case from Craig v. Rich Twp. High Sch. Dist. 227

holding a matter is of public concern when it is “a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public”

Summary of this case from Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC v. Bensinger

holding that a police officer's off-duty distribution of videos of him engaging in pornographic activity was not a matter of public concern in part because "[t]he speech in question was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer"

Summary of this case from Meenan v. Harrison

holding that the San Diego Police Department had a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing one of its officers from selling pornographic videos of himself on eBay where the officer appeared in uniform, performed a parody of an officer performing indecent acts in the course of official duties, and identified himself on eBay as a law enforcement officer

Summary of this case from Nixon v. Houston

holding that outside speech detrimental to the missions and functions of the employer was not of public concern

Summary of this case from Wetherbe v. Tex. Tech Univ. Sys.

holding that public employee's production, marketing, and selling of “sexually explicit” videos “[did] not qualify as a matter of public concern under any view of the public concern test” while noting that “[t]he speech in question was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer”

Summary of this case from Weslowski v. Zugibe

holding a police officer's expressive off-duty conduct was not a matter of public concern, reasoning "Roe's activities did nothing to inform the public about any aspect of the [Police Department]'s functioning or operation," such that "[t]here is no basis for finding that [the speech] was of concern to the community as the Court's cases have understood that term in the context" of public employment

Summary of this case from Williams v. Miller

holding that a police officer's off-duty expression of selling sexually explicit videotapes of himself did not relate to a matter of public concern

Summary of this case from Plofsky v. Guiliano

holding off-duty policeman's production, marketing and selling of sexually explicit videos for profit did not qualify as expression relating to a matter of public concern

Summary of this case from Shaver v. Davie County Public Schools

holding that police officer did not speak on matter of public concern when he used his police uniform/identification to promote a personal agenda

Summary of this case from Risk v. Burgettstown Borough, Pennsylvania

holding that a city could terminate a police officer for selling police paraphernalia and videos of himself engaging in sexually explicit acts in uniform

Summary of this case from Love v. Rehfus

holding that NTEU was inapplicable because the plaintiff in Roe deliberately linked his speech to his public employment as a police officer

Summary of this case from Shirvell v. Dep't of Attorney Gen.

holding that NTEU was inapplicable where the plaintiff deliberately linked his speech to his public employment as a police officer

Summary of this case from Shirvell v. Dep't of Attorney Gen.

holding that the sexually explicit acts of the government employee, depicted in a video, did not address a matter of public concern where the acts “did nothing to inform the public about any aspect of the [employing agency's] functioning or operation”

Summary of this case from Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea

ruling that the termination of a police officer for making pornographic videos in which he was featured wearing a generic police uniform did not violate the First Amendment because the content of those videos did not relate to a matter of public concern

Summary of this case from Policastro v. Tenafly Board of Education

affirming district court's dismissal of a First Amendment claim on a motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff's expression “[did] not qualify as a matter of public concern”

Summary of this case from Weslowski v. Zugibe

defining public concern in the First Amendment context as "something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication"

Summary of this case from Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State Univ.

stating that a topic is a matter of public concern if it is of "general interest" or of "legitimate news interest"

Summary of this case from Montero v. City of Yonkers

explaining that a public employer may regulate speech to “protect its own legitimate interests in performing its mission”

Summary of this case from Oyama v. Univ. of Haw.

requiring courts to evaluate the “legitimate news interest,” meaning the “value and concern to the public at the time of publication”

Summary of this case from United States v. Sterling

applying public-concern test to police officer's sale of sexually explicit videos of himself

Summary of this case from Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs

noting the "common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter"

Summary of this case from Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty

applying balancing test drawn from Pickering v. Bd. of Educ, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811

Summary of this case from Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture

interpreting a matter of public interest or concern as "something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication"

Summary of this case from Wolfe v. Barnhart

In San Diego, the Supreme Court wrote that "[a]lthough the boundaries of the public concern test are not well-defined, Connick provides some guidance... [i]t directs courts to examine the `content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record....'" 125 S.Ct. at 525.

Summary of this case from Miller v. Jones
Case details for

City of San Diego v. Roe

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROE

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 6, 2004

Citations

543 U.S. 77 (2004)
125 S. Ct. 521

Citing Cases

Dible v. City of Chandler

The Supreme Court recently took up the issue of employee speech in general and conduct of the sort engaged in…

Piscottano v. Murphy

See also Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006) (statements made by a…