Unsettled Questions in the Wake of Garcetti v. Ceballos By David L.
In Februarya defense attorney contacted Ceballos about a pending criminal case. The defense attorney said there were inaccuracies in an affidavit used to obtain a critical search warrant.
The attorney informed Ceballos that he had filed a motion to traverse, or challenge, the warrant, but he also wanted Ceballos to review the case. According to Ceballos, it was Garcetti v ceballos unusual for defense attorneys to ask calendar deputies to investigate aspects of pending cases.
After examining the affidavit and visiting the location it described, Ceballos determined the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations.
The affidavit called a long driveway what Ceballos thought should have been referred to as a separate roadway. He relayed his findings to his supervisors, petitioners Carol Najera and Frank Sundstedt, and followed up by preparing a disposition memorandum.
On March 2,Ceballos submitted the memo to Sundstedt for his review. A few days later, Ceballos presented Sundstedt with another memo, this one describing a second telephone conversation between Ceballos and the warrant affiant. The meeting allegedly became heated, with one lieutenant sharply criticizing Ceballos for his handling of the case.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion. Ceballos was called by the defense and recounted his observations about the affidavit, but the trial court rejected the challenge to the warrant.
Ceballos claims that in the aftermath of these events he was subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions. The actions included reassignment from his calendar deputy position to a trial deputy position, transfer to another courthouse, and denial of a promotion.
Ceballos initiated an employment grievance, but the grievance was denied based on a finding that he had not suffered any retaliation. He alleged petitioners violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by retaliating against him based on his memo of March 2.
Petitioners responded that no retaliatory actions were taken against Ceballos and that all the actions of which he complained were explained by legitimate reasons such as staffing needs. Petitioners moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted their motion.
In reaching its conclusion the court looked to the First Amendment analysis set forth in Pickering v. See Pickering, supra, at Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
66 F.3d - HORTON v. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. 64 F.3d - KINCADE v.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine the breadth of the First Amendment as it relates to speech that would be a routine part of a public employee's employment.
This article examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos in a novel light. Paying careful attention to the specific facts that were before the Court in Garcetti, and to the Court’s perception of these facts against the background of employee speech case law, the authors.
EMBED (for attheheels.com hosted blogs and attheheels.com item tags). Garcetti v. Ceballos, U.S. (), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment free speech protections for government employees.
The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. LAW SUMMARY The Right to Remain Silent?
Garcetti v. Ceballos and a Public Employee's Refusal to Speak Falsely ASHLEY M. CROSS* I. INTRODUCTION.