City of San Diego v. Roe
2004 U.S. LEXIS 8165, 160 L. Ed. 2d 410, 543 U.S. 77 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employee’s speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it does not address a matter of public concern and is detrimental to the employer's mission and functions, particularly when the speech is linked to the employee's official status for private gain.
Facts:
- John Roe, a San Diego police officer, created a video of himself stripping off a police-style uniform and masturbating.
- Roe sold this video, along with custom videos and official San Diego Police Department (SDPD) uniforms, on the adults-only section of eBay.
- His eBay username was 'Code3stud@aol.com,' a play on a police radio call, and his user profile identified him as being employed in law enforcement.
- An SDPD sergeant discovered Roe’s activities after finding an official SDPD uniform for sale online under Roe's username.
- Upon discovering the explicit videos, the sergeant recognized Roe and reported him to the department's internal affairs.
- During the investigation, Roe produced a custom video for an undercover officer in which he, while in uniform, pretended to revoke a traffic ticket before masturbating.
- The SDPD ordered Roe to cease all related activities, but he failed to fully comply by not removing advertisements for his videos from his seller profile.
Procedural Posture:
- John Roe sued the City of San Diego in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging his termination violated his First Amendment rights.
- The District Court (trial court) granted the City's motion to dismiss.
- Roe, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court's decision, holding Roe's conduct was protected speech.
- The City of San Diego, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment protect a police officer from termination for selling sexually explicit videos that are linked to his official status but do not address a matter of public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The First Amendment does not protect a public employee’s speech from discipline when that speech is of a purely personal nature and is detrimental to the public employer's mission. To determine if a public employee’s speech is protected, courts first apply the threshold inquiry from Connick v. Myers to see if the speech touches on a matter of public concern. Public concern is defined as a subject of legitimate news interest or general concern to the public. If the speech fails this test, the inquiry ends. Here, Roe's videos did not inform the public about the police department's operations; rather, they were created for personal profit. He deliberately linked this private, sexually explicit conduct to his official status through the use of a uniform, a police-related username, and his online profile, which brought the mission and professionalism of the police department into serious disrepute. Because Roe’s expression was not on a matter of public concern and was detrimental to his employer, it does not receive First Amendment protection, and the Pickering balancing test is not triggered.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'public concern' test established in Connick v. Myers for public employee speech. It establishes that even off-duty speech unrelated to internal workplace grievances can fail the test if it is purely personal, exploits the employer's image for commercial gain, and harms the agency's mission. The case reinforces that public employees, especially those in positions of public trust like law enforcement, have diminished First Amendment rights regarding off-duty conduct that undermines the integrity and reputation of their employer. This precedent makes it easier for government agencies to discipline employees for online and off-duty activities that negatively reflect on the agency, even if the speech is not about the workplace itself.
