Case Briefing 4

Case Briefing Practice 4

Issue

The police department of San Diego fired John Roe due to a video showing him participating in sexually explicit acts he made and sold online. 

1. Was John Roe’s First Amendment right to free speech violated by the city of San Diego Police Department as an employee that is a private citizen?
2. Was John Roe’s privacy as an employee that is a private citizen violated by the San Diego Police Department?

Conclusion

Working as an employee for a city or the government does not mean surrendering their First Amendment rights; they should have privacy when it is unrelated- to work. The Petitioner, San Diego Police Department, crossed the boundaries and terminated Respondent Roe, who violated the department’s policy.  However, the San Diego Police Department infringed on Roe’s privacy and First Amendment rights, but the courts are defining that line between a city worker and a worker as a public citizen. 

According to the U.S. Constitution related to the First Amendment rights, a public employee should have the same rights to speak freely or express themselves in an art form in which Roe did not cause harm to the public.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.  The court’s position is to determine the balance between the employee and employer as a private business or government agency in protecting the individual’s constitutional right in exercising their freedom of speech and/or art form.  In the preceding case, courts reviewed Connick v. Pickering on some similarities between the court case in determining the outcome of this present case and which laws are applicable.  The concern with the court’s decision is to evaluate restraints with a public employee by allowing them to exercise their First Amendment rights as the employee as a public citizen.  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.

The courts did find that Respondent John Roe caused harm to his employer by using his uniform as part of his sexually explicit video.  The Court of Appeal opinion that the lower court made an error saying this was a concern for the public related to the employee actions.  The First Amendment protection would apply to the off-duty employee to express freely in literature or art.  The Court of Appeals determined that there was no public concern or threat by his actions. However, the Court of Appeal’s opinion that Roe’s action did not affect the general public concern is not somewhat worthy of reasonable news interest that appeals or impacts the public opinion, such as a comment about the President. The Per Curiam judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.