Aug. 21, 2013<\/p>\n
Federal Appeals Court Reinstates First Amendment Claim of Whistleblower Police Officer<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Burbank, Calif., Officer Was Placed on Administrative Leave After Disclosing Officer Abuse of Suspects<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n SAN FRANCISCO \u2013 Reversing its prior decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today<\/a> that Burbank, Calif., police officer Angelo Dahlia was engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment when he disclosed the abuse of suspects by his fellow officers. Therefore, the court held, Dahlia may sue the city of Burbank for retaliating against him for the disclosures.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are pleased that the court has reinstated this important case to allow Mr. Dahlia to vindicate his free speech rights and the rights of police officers throughout California,\u201d said attorney Michael A. Morguess of Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir of Upland, Calif., who argued the case.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s ruling, issued by a panel of 11 judges, overruled the previous decision of a smaller panel of judges last August, which had held that the case could not proceed because Dahlia\u2019s speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Today\u2019s decision also overruled another prior Ninth Circuit opinion that had sharply restricted California police officers\u2019 ability to assert employment retaliation claims based on the First Amendment.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling is a significant victory not only for California police officers but also for the First Amendment and the public at large, who need to know when public officials are engaging in misconduct,\u201d said Scott Michelman, an attorney with Public Citizen who wrote the successful petition seeking rehearing of the court\u2019s original decision. \u201cCourageous police officers like Angelo Dahlia are in many circumstances the public\u2019s best or even only available source of information about police corruption and abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the Dahlia\u2019s complaint, beginning in 2007, he witnessed fellow Burbank Police Department officers beating, threatening and choking suspects. After Dahlia complained within his department, officers threatened Dahlia himself. Dahlia ultimately disclosed to another law enforcement agency and to his union the abuses he witnessed. In response, Dahlia was placed on administrative leave and lost pay and a promotional opportunity.<\/p>\n Dahlia sued, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated, but the trial court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit, in initially upholding that decision, ruled that Dahlia was not protected by the First Amendment because reporting misconduct is part of his job as a police officer.<\/p>\n In the petition asking for the case to be reheard, Public Citizen and Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir argued that the scope of a police officer\u2019s job duties and what speech is protected should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, Dahlia\u2019s attorneys argued, if the panel\u2019s decision was allowed to stand, police officers would be deterred from speaking out about misconduct by fellow officers and the public would lose an important source of information about the activities of government.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s decision, the court agreed with both propositions, applying the \u201cpractical, fact-specific inquiry\u201d to find that Dahlia\u2019s speech was protected by the First Amendment and explaining that \u201coften … unless public employees are willing to blow the whistle, government corruption and abuse would persist undetected and undeterred.\u201d<\/p>\n As a result of today\u2019s decision, Dahlia\u2019s case will return to the trial court.<\/p>\n To read the decision, please visit https:\/\/www.citizen.org\/sites\/default\/files\/dahlia-v-rodriguez-en-banc-opinion.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n More information on the case, Dahlia v. Rodriguez<\/em>,<\/strong> is available at https:\/\/www.citizen.org\/our-work\/litigation\/cases\/dahlia-v-rodriguez<\/a>.<\/p>\n ###<\/p>\n