Prosecutor First Amendment applies to rights

« How to inhibit outrage -Tactics of officials to prevent justice | Main

10/17/2008

The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address
Riverside County denies this right -The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption."

"Freeway Therapy" for Whistleblower Deputy D.A. The Ninth Circuit's opinion today in Ceballos v. Garcetti, no. 02-55418, is a fascinating read about how Deputy D.A. whistleblowers are treated, about how the First Amendment applies to the workplace, and about sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption." And because the defendant district attorney was performing a county function (as opposed to a state function) when he took the alleged actions with respect to the plaintiff, neither the district attorney nor the county were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Permalink
Posted at 04:48 AM in privacy rights, DA not allowed immunity | Permalink
Technorati Tags: constitution, Da, daima calhoun, district attorney, false evidence, mike rushton, nye frank, privacy rights, prosecutor, riverside county, rod pacheco, rod pacheco
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3131254/34620395

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address: