NCJ Number
92104
Journal
Journal of Police Science and Administration Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1983) Pages: 395-401
Date Published
1983
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Rules restricting the speech of police employees will be valid only if they regulate speech of a kind that can impair the department's operations by interfering with the supervisor's ability to maintain discipline or departmental efficiency in serving the public or speech made with reckless disregard for its falsity.
Abstract
The Supreme Court has shown great deference to the constitutional right of freedom of speech. Federal courts address allegations that a disciplinary action against a public employee has infringed that freedom by applying a balancing test to weigh the interests of the state employer against those of the employee. This standard was established in 1968 by Pickering v. Board of Education. Lower courts in applying the Pickering test have identified six situations which may involve government interest sufficiently to outweigh first amendment rights: (1) a need exists for maintaining discipline and harmony in the work force; (2) the need for confidentiality is great; (3) an employee's position is such that his or her statements might be difficult to counter due to his or her presumed greater access to the facts; (4) employee's statements inhibit proper job performance; (5) statements are so unfounded that individual's capability to perform the job is questionable; and (6) a close personal working relationship requiring personal loyalty and confidence is jeopardized. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Pickering balancing test and added several clarifying points in Connick v. Myers in 1983. The paper reviews selected public employee freedom of speech cases to illustrate the boundaries being laid out in this area by the lower courts. References are included.