Untitled Document
The U.S. Supreme Court wants the city of Springfield
to explain why a police sergeant who blew the whistle on two brothers in
blue isn’t protected by the First Amendment. The sergeant, Ron Vose, resigned from SPD and filed
suit in 2006 against then-Chief Don Kliment and then-Deputy Chief Bill
Rouse, claiming that they had effectively demoted him in retaliation for
his complaints against the department’s two star detectives, Paul
Carpenter and Jim Graham, who were later fired. U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott denied the
city’s motion to dismiss Vose’s suit, but in October the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Scott’s ruling, saying that
Vose’s criticism of the detectives was simply part of his job and
therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
Vose’s attorneys then petitioned the Supreme
Court to review the 7th Circuit’s decision. Such a filing —
known as a petition for writ of certiorari but usually referred to as a
“cert petition” — requires no response from the opposing
party, and the city of Springfield elected not to answer Vose’s cert
petition. Last week, however, the Supreme Court requested a response. In a letter addressed to Springfield assistant
corporation counsel Tracy Ann Johansson, a clerk wrote: “Although
your office has waived the right to file a response [. . . ], the Court
nevertheless has directed this office to request that a response be
filed.” The city must send 40 copies of the response, bound with
orange covers, by March 27. Vose’s attorney, Stanley Wasser, says
it’s impossible to know what — if anything — the request
signals. “We don’t read anything into this,
because we have no way of knowing what prompted it or what it means,”
Wasser says. Jenifer Johnson, corporation counsel for the city of
Springfield, referred a reporter to city spokesman Ernie Slottag, who was
unaware that the city had received a letter from the Supreme Court. The case closely resembles a recent narrowly decided
Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos.
Richard Ceballos was a Los Angeles assistant
prosecutor who discovered that a deputy sheriff had filed a misleading
affidavit to obtain a search warrant. Ceballos wrote a memo to his bosses,
suggesting that the case be dropped because of government misconduct, but
his supervisors decided to proceed with the case anyway. Ceballos also
testified to his findings in court, but the judge likewise allowed the case
to continue. Claiming that he was subsequently denied a promotion, demoted
in rank, and transferred to another office in retaliation, Ceballos filed
suit against his supervisors, including Los Angeles District Attorney Gil
Garcetti. In 2006, the Supreme Court majority ruled that
Ceballos’ complaints about the deputy’s false affidavit fell
under his job duties, excluding him from the protection that would have
been accorded to a private citizen. The 7th Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s Garcetti ruling in its
dismissal of Vose’s case, stating: “Vose may have gone above
and beyond his routine duties by investigating and reporting suspected
misconduct in another police unit, but that does not mean that he spoke as
a citizen and not as a public employee.”
In his petition, Wasser argued that Garcetti needed clarification,
pointing to the 7th Circuit’s interpretation as overly broad.
Contact Dusty Rhodes at drhodes@illinoistimes.com
This article appears in Feb 28 – Mar 5, 2008.
