Federal Judge Rejects Curbs on Speech Imposed on Court’s Deputy Marshals

In a victory for an Orange County deputy marshal who was punished for speaking to the news media, a federal judge has ruled that certain regulations written by the county marshal and six judges for the marshal’s service violate the constitutional right of free speech.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter issued the decision earlier this month in a lawsuit brought by Richard H. Emmons, who alleged that the marshal’s code of conduct prevented him and other deputy marshals from speaking about issues important to the public.

“This is a significant affirmation of the right of police officers to engage in normal political activity or free-speech activity,” Meir J. Westreich, a civil rights attorney representing Emmons, said Thursday.

Emmons could not be reached for comment.

In October, 1990, Emmons sued: the county; Marshal Michael S. Carona; Assistant Marshal James L. Hill; Marshal’s Capt. Donald Spears; Marshal’s Lts. Gary G. Tackett and Michael Padore; Richard W. Stanford Jr., then presiding judge of Municipal Court; Superior Court Judges Robert B. Hutson, Kathleen O’Leary and Manuel A. Ramirez, and Municipal Court Judges Frank Fasel and Arthur G. Koelle.

At the time, the defendants sat on the Joint Marshal’s Personnel Committee, which oversees and promulgates regulations for more than 300 deputy marshals, who police the county’s court system. Ramirez is now a state appellate judge.

According to his lawsuit, Emmons was disciplined after he detailed for a local newspaper his longstanding concerns about a lack of safety and security in the parking lots around the Civic Center in Santa Ana, which includes the central courthouse. In an interview for the article, he criticized county officials.

Shortly after, Emmons said, he was reprimanded for insubordination, criticizing county officials and expressing an opinion on a controversial matter.

He has also said that since the article appeared he has been subject to unfair treatment, including unwarranted internal affairs investigations.

After Emmons sued, Westreich said, the personnel committee did not contest the free-speech allegations but contended that Emmons had been disciplined only for insubordination for appearing in a newspaper photo in his uniform.

Westreich also said the committee tried to rewrite the rules related to public statements by deputy marshals. At the time, the department had broad prohibitions against public and political statements on controversial subjects.

Among other things, the revised regulations stated that deputy marshals cannot disclose confidential information concerning the courts or the service at public gatherings and that they are barred from making statements for publication about the plans, policies or affairs of the court or the service, unless authorized to do so. The regulations further limit speech topics to the functions of the service and bar public statements that intentionally antagonize any person.

In his three-page decision, Hatter ruled May 6 that the revised regulations are unconstitutional and must be stricken from the code of conduct for the service. He also dismissed the six judges as defendants because of sovereign immunity.

Eric L. Dobberteen, attorney for the county and the judges, declined to comment Thursday on Hatter’s ruling. Marshal Carona could not be reached for comment.

Tackett, who is now a captain, said Thursday that the service plans to meet with attorneys to rewrite the rules that were found unconstitutional.

“There will be action. We will review those sections, and we will make changes,” Tackett said.

Westreich said he has made a settlement offer to the county in a bid to end the case. He said he wants Emmons’ personnel record cleared, the code of conduct changed and monetary damages, which he declined to disclose.