tranquility
Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
At http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/03/12-35492.pdf is a story of a K-9 officer on the Eugene police department. Said officer went on many Eugene police department SWAT operations to provide assistance and noticed a bit of a problem. It seems the other SWAT officers had an annoying habit of accidentally shooting people. Now, of course, they didn't always shoot people. Sometimes they just had an accidental discharge during operations. No biggie, I'm sure we all have negligently fired a firearm in the course of our days. Anyway, this officer felt this a bit of a bad thing and reported it to his superiors. Again. And, again. In many meetings, he'd mention it at the appropriate time. Superiors did not like that and removed him from K-9 as retaliation.
Jury finds for officer for a bunch of money for a first amendment violation. City appeals on the idea that since officer has a duty to report safety issues, when doing so he is on the job and does not get first amendment protection. Appellate court reverses trial court and gives city a judgment as a matter of law the officer gets nothing.
I understand the legal argument completely and agree the logical course laid out by the appellate court. I just think there should be some legal protection to a guy who wants to reduce accidental shootings in his department.
At http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/03/12-35492.pdf is a story of a K-9 officer on the Eugene police department. Said officer went on many Eugene police department SWAT operations to provide assistance and noticed a bit of a problem. It seems the other SWAT officers had an annoying habit of accidentally shooting people. Now, of course, they didn't always shoot people. Sometimes they just had an accidental discharge during operations. No biggie, I'm sure we all have negligently fired a firearm in the course of our days. Anyway, this officer felt this a bit of a bad thing and reported it to his superiors. Again. And, again. In many meetings, he'd mention it at the appropriate time. Superiors did not like that and removed him from K-9 as retaliation.
Jury finds for officer for a bunch of money for a first amendment violation. City appeals on the idea that since officer has a duty to report safety issues, when doing so he is on the job and does not get first amendment protection. Appellate court reverses trial court and gives city a judgment as a matter of law the officer gets nothing.
I understand the legal argument completely and agree the logical course laid out by the appellate court. I just think there should be some legal protection to a guy who wants to reduce accidental shootings in his department.
