Whistle-Blower Case Gets Justices’ Attention

The Supreme Court said Monday that it would take up the case of a Los Angeles County prosecutor to decide whether whistle-blowers in public agencies had a free-speech right to voice complaints of wrongdoing without suffering retaliation.

The case, to be heard in the fall, could affect the rights of millions of public employees, including police officers, prosecutors, teachers and public hospital workers.

Managers of public agencies in California said they were concerned that a ruling might result in turning every internal gripe into a federal case.

In the past, the high court has said public employees have a 1st Amendment right to speak out on “matters of public concern.” In other decisions, they have ruled that internal disputes within an agency should stay as internal matters.

The tension between those rulings has led to conflicts in the lower courts, and the justices said they would hear the case of then-Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti vs. Richard Ceballos to clarify the law.

Five years ago, Ceballos was a deputy district attorney in Pomona when a defense lawyer told him that a deputy sheriff might have lied about evidence to obtain a search warrant.

Ceballos said he looked into the matter and went to the crime scene. He concluded that the deputy might have exaggerated the evidence, and complained about the situation in a memo to his supervisors.

Ceballos advised the prosecutor’s office to dismiss the pending case because, he said, the search warrant was invalid.

He also turned over his memo to the defense lawyer in the case, because the Constitution requires prosecutors to disclose evidence that might exonerate a crime suspect.

Despite the questions that had been raised, a judge allowed the prosecution to go forward, and Ceballos said he was demoted and moved to another office in retaliation for his actions. In his complaint, Ceballos described his transfer to the El Monte office as a form of “freeway therapy.”

He sued his supervisors, including Garcetti, alleging that he had been punished for speaking out on a matter of public concern.

U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz in Los Angeles dismissed his claim, ruling that there was no 1st Amendment issue involved in the dispute.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco revived the case in a 2-1 decision. Judge Stephen Reinhardt said it was crucial that public employees be able to disclose wrongdoing in public agencies.

“The right of public employees to speak freely on matters of public concern is important to the orderly functioning of the democratic process,” Reinhardt wrote. “Stripping them of that right

But lawyers for Garcetti and the California State Assn. of Counties urged the high court to take up their appeal. They said it would have a “crippling effect on the management” of all public agencies if every internal dispute could be turned into a free-speech battle in the courts.

A top Los Angeles County prosecutor refused to comment. “We don’t comment on pending litigation,” said Roger Granbo, a senior county counsel.

Ceballos still works as a deputy district attorney for the county.

The case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the fall.