High Court Sides With Police Officer in Free Speech Case

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a New Jersey police officer who was demoted after his boss mistakenly believed he was involved in a political campaign can still bring a lawsuit alleging a violation of free speech rights.

The 6-2 ruling said Jeffrey Heffernan could file a First Amendment claim against the city of Paterson, New Jersey, even if he wasn't actually taking sides in the local mayoral race.

Heffernan claimed he was a victim of retaliation after other officers saw him picking up a campaign sign and talking to campaign workers. It turns out Heffernan was really picking up the sign for his mother and was not involved in the campaign.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

The Supreme Court's decision does not necessarily mean Heffernan will win his lawsuit. The justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine whether New Jersey officials might have been acting under a neutral policy that generally prohibits police officers from "overt involvement in any political campaign."


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-sides-police-officer-free-speech-case-38676630

---

By SAM HANANEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Apr 26, 2016, 10:57 AM ET

[TipTok]

1. If the rules are anything like the military rules...

... the restriction lies in conducting political activities under the perceived authority of your position.

[iandhr]

2. I have a legal question.

As a legal matter the police union is free to endorse a candidate of their choice.


So why can't cops volunteer for a campaign when their off duty?

[24601]

3. We probably need more information. For example, if state and local positions are supported by

federal monies, then Hatch Act restrictions can apply. But even within the Hatch Act, not everyone is under the same rules. Some federal employees can take leave and work on a campaign. You may recall the early Clinton Administration controversy about who hired the WH Personnel Security Officer (the one who was involved with mishandling FBI files from the previous administration), the civil servant who was his running buddy was a Department of the Army employee who was angling for a U.S. Marshall appointment. He had taken leave and worked on the campaign. Of course after the scandal broke, he received no such appointment and his WH detail was ended. But had he been an employee of the FBI, working the campaign would have been against the Hatch Act and the Office of Special Counsel would have gone to the Merit Systems Protection Board to terminate his federal employment.

The Hatch Act does not apply to uniformed military personnel - they are restricted by regulation, not by law.

I'll add that Hatch Act restrictions apply to partisan elections, not to ballot initiatives, or other seemingly partisan actions such as Impeachments.