04-473 - Garcetti v. Ceballos - Supreme Court of the United States

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$J1L(lO~ \~ ~~ - Center for Investigative Reporting$

Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)1Opinion of the CourtNOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in thepreliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES_________________No. 04–473_________________GIL GARCETTI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD CEBALLOS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT[May 30, 2006] JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.It is well settled that “a State cannot condition publicemployment on a basis that infringes the employee’sconstitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.”Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 142 (1983). Thequestion presented by the instant case is whether theFirst Amendment protects a government employee fromdiscipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’sofficial duties.IRespondent Richard Ceballos has been employed since1989 as a deputy district attorney for the Los AngelesCounty District Attorney’s Office. During the periodrelevant to this case, Ceballos was a calendar deputy inthe office’s Pomona branch, and in this capacity he exercisedcertain supervisory responsibilities over other lawyers.In February 2000, a defense attorney contactedCeballos about a pending criminal case. The defenseattorney said there were inaccuracies in an affidavit usedto obtain a critical search warrant. The attorney informedCeballos that he had filed a motion to traverse, or chal-
2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of the Courtlenge, the warrant, but he also wanted Ceballos to reviewthe case. According to Ceballos, it was not unusual fordefense attorneys to ask calendar deputies to investigateaspects of pending cases.After examining the affidavit and visiting the location itdescribed, Ceballos determined the affidavit containedserious misrepresentations. The affidavit called a longdriveway what Ceballos thought should have been referredto as a separate roadway. Ceballos also questionedthe affidavit’s statement that tire tracks led from astripped-down truck to the premises covered by the warrant.His doubts arose from his conclusion that the roadway’scomposition in some places made it difficult or impossibleto leave visible tire tracks.Ceballos spoke on the telephone to the warrant affiant,a deputy sheriff from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’sDepartment, but he did not receive a satisfactory explanationfor the perceived inaccuracies. He relayed his findingsto his supervisors, petitioners Carol Najera and FrankSundstedt, and followed up by preparing a dispositionmemorandum. The memo explained Ceballos’ concerns andrecommended dismissal of the case. On March 2, 2000,Ceballos submitted the memo to Sundstedt for his review.A few days later, Ceballos presented Sundstedt with anothermemo, this one describing a second telephone conversationbetween Ceballos and the warrant affiant.Based on Ceballos’ statements, a meeting was held to discussthe affidavit. Attendees included Ceballos, Sundstedt,and Najera, as well as the warrant affiant and other employeesfrom the sheriff’s department. The meeting allegedlybecame heated, with one lieutenant sharply criticizingCeballos for his handling of the case.Despite Ceballos’ concerns, Sundstedt decided to proceedwith the prosecution, pending disposition of thedefense motion to traverse. The trial court held a hearingon the motion. Ceballos was called by the defense and
Page 1 and 2: (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 20051S
Page 3: Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)3Syll
Page 7 and 8: 4 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 13 and 14: 10 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of t
Page 19 and 20: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSTEVENS, J.,
Page 21 and 22: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSOUTER, J., d
Page 29 and 30: 10 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSOUTER, J.,
Page 39 and 40: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d
Page 41 and 42: 4 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d
Page 43: 6 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d

04-473 - Garcetti v. Ceballos - Supreme Court of the United States

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?