So I have this hypo that's giving me problems; here's the run down:
A is a female employee of a police department. She is a police officer; one of her official roles is to check corruption in the dept. She and her boss were romantically involved at some time in the past. B is the person she was romantically involved with, and he runs the vice division of the department. A notices some irregularities with an investigation of a known drug dealer, D, over which B presides. Meanwhile B breaks off his relationship with A, and gets engaged to another coworker. While investigating the irregularities, A notices that B's cell phone records indicate B has been calling D at regular intervals. A takes this information to B, and to upper mgmt. and she is ordered to end her investigation by B and upper mgmt. She does not end her investigation but instead takes surveillance equipment from her office and surveils B. She discovers B meeting D at a local hotel with the equipment and takes photos of the two going into a room together, and B emerging with a large sack (possibly a sack of money). She publishes the photos on her personal blog on her own time away from work on her own laptop, along with language like, "Fire this duchebag because he's a lying corrupt official, and here's the proof..." along with the photos of B at the hotel. A claims her language was protected by the First Amendment. What result, keeping in mind Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006)?
I want to make sure I'm doing this right!
A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: laowhynot109 and 4 guests