Officer Thomas Nixon is a Ignorant Cop in Texas

[tex]

1/27/06 - HOUSTON - It was a dramatic end to a high speed chase -- a driver going the wrong way slammed into a car with a baby inside. One memorable figure from that day was an HPD officer who openly complained about the department's chase policy.

"It makes me embarrassed to be a police officer when we are afraid to do our jobs and our jobs are to protect the public," said HPD Officer Thomas Nixon after the chase.

Officer Nixon is now suing Houston's police chief. He's currently off the street and on desk duty, taking police reports by phone. By department order, he cannot comment publicly on the investigation against him, but now in federal court, he's letting a lawsuit do the talking for him.

The lawsuit claims that Nixon's right to free speech to express his opinions has been violated by the Houston Police Department. Exhibit A is a memo sent the day after Nixon publicly criticized HPD's chase policy. An assistant chief of internal investigations ordered Nixon not to make public statements about ongoing investigations.

Then, the memo says "In your capacity as a private citizen, I'm reminding you of your continuing duty to not make statements that tend to bring reproach, discredit, or embarrassment to the department."

That, Nixon's attorney, says goes too far.

Nixon's lawsuit also claims civil rights violations, alleging that he is suffering demotion on the job because he voiced his opinion. A spokesman for the Houston Police Department says Police Chief Harold Hurtt won't have a comment on the lawsuit until he sees a copy of it.

[tex]

tex said:

It makes me embarrassed to be a police officer when we are afraid to do our jobs and our jobs are to protect the public," said HPD Officer Thomas Nixon after the chase.

For one Officer Thomas Nixon is very ignorant on the fact that his job, doesn't consist of "protecting the public." The police in Houston Texas have no duty to protect citizens of that city. This is a fact! Officer Thomas Nixon is a LIAR!

Besides officer Nixon, how much longer do you need to chase someone and not put citizens in danger? The car chase you pursued, last over two hours! Two hours that you put other people in danger.

In Houston, 676 police chases last year resulted in injuries to 79 people, 14 of them were civilians "not involved in pursuits."

Officer Nixon I hope next time when your in a car chase, I hope that your family is out on the road. Maybe you will think twice about high speed pursuit and lets hope that one of your family members isn't killed by some gung ho cop. Then again it might be a good idea, for a few family members of cops to be killed by high speed pursuit. I'm all for that!

[WaTcHeR]

Connecticut Trooper Wins $450K Against State Police

The victory of a state trooper who recently won a $450,000 settlement in a free-speech case will have repercussions beyond the Connecticut State Police, legal experts say.

``It will enhance the rights of all whistleblowers in government and will give courage to government employees who see wrongdoing and who have been afraid to say anything,'' said attorney John R. Williams of New Haven.

Roger Vann, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said his colleagues in the state and nation noted the settlement, and ``the comments were that it seemed to be a very significant settlement and development for free speech rights for state employees.''

``It was a great day for the Bill of Rights,'' Vann said. ``It just underscores the importance of recognizing that people in all professions, whether public or private, have free speech rights.''

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by Trooper Mark Lauretano, who alleged that his supervisors violated his right to free speech by preventing him from speaking about a sexual assault case involving a boy at Hotchkiss School in Salisbury in 1997. He also alleged that the department retaliated against him for seeking to exercise that right.

Other public agencies should take notice of the court ruling and the recent settlement with Lauretano, experts say. The settlement, which included attorney's fees, was reached in January, but made public this month.

``This absolutely applies to all government agencies,'' Williams said. ``It's a federal court ruling, and the state of Connecticut accepted the settlement, not for chump change, but for major, major money. I think it will be hugely significant for Connecticut.''

Although the case is not binding in federal districts in other states, it could be cited in legal arguments brought in similar cases, legal experts say.

Judge Dominic J. Squatrito, in U.S. District Court in Hartford in 2004, ruled that a state police policy restricting troopers from talking to the media was unconstitutional.

Squatrito imposed a permanent injunction ending the state police media policy, and enjoined the state police from preventing employees from speaking out freely on matters of public concern. The judge said the department's administrative and operations manual violated troopers' right to free speech.

``We should have those freedoms and those rights,'' said state police union President David LeBlanc, adding that the Lauretano settlement should help ensure troopers' free speech rights.

Lauretano in 1999 sued the state, Public Safety Commissioner Arthur Spada, Cols. John Bardelli and Edmond C. Brunt and Lt. Col. Timothy Barry for their refusal to allow him to speak about the investigation of how he conducted the Hotchkiss case, even though they spoke publicly about it.

After Squatrito's judgment, Lauretano was prepared to go to trial for damages, but Attorney General Richard Blumenthal decided to abandon his appeal of the ruling.

``My guess is the attorney general's office had to be aware their chances on appeal were slim,'' said attorney Karen Lee Torre, who represented Lauretano. ``It is a hefty price, but all I can tell you is I offered to settle these cases early on, and every time my efforts are rebuffed.''

Torre and Lauretano declined to discuss the settlement amount, but a portion of it went to attorney's fees.

Blumenthal at first said he was appealing the decision at the request of Public Safety Commissioner Leonard C. Boyle.

But he said he decided to settle to ``avoid a lengthy, costly litigation when there can be an agreement that serves the public interest.''

``This settlement, in our view, serves the public interest,'' he said.

Blumenthal said he would advise other state agencies to establish policies similar to the one being put in place by the state police.

``Agencies should be aware of this settlement and the general First Amendment principles that have been applied,'' he said.

Lauretano, who is Salisbury resident state trooper, said he has had calls from troopers and employees of other agencies since the settlement ``because a lot of them are facing the same kind of criticism.''

``They know how important it is,'' Lauretano said of the decision and the settlement. ``It's a mentality that infests the agency,'' he said Thursday.

He and other troopers believe they now have more freedom to speak, but he said he is troubled that the state police has not changed its media policy in its administrative and operations manual.

Boyle said the state police reached an agreement with Lauretano on what the manual should say regarding media policy. He said the department wants to make sure the policy satisfies its agreement with Lauretano and the judge's ruling.

The media policy ``is not done yet, although it will be very shortly,'' Boyle said. ``The policy is much more expansive and allows employees great access to the media.''

The Lauretano case is not the first in which the state has had to pay a significant amount in a free speech case. In 1998, Supervisory Inspector Gregory Dillon sued Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey, claiming violation of First Amendment rights, and was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. He eventually reached a $1.5 million settlement.

Dillon was a whistleblower who alleged that federal agents on a joint state-federal fugitive task force were fabricating information on arrest warrant affidavits.

Torre said the case against the state police is significant for government employees statewide and nationwide because it addresses flawed media policies, not just individual whistleblowers.

``It's a federal court precedent that can add assistance to law enforcement employees who go to work every day and who are under the chokehold of these agencies,'' she said.

[KC]

March 22, 2006 - U.S. High Court Mulls Free Speech Claim by Local Prosecutor. Deputy District Attorney Contends He Was Demoted for Questioning Veracity of Warrant Affidavit.

Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism yesterday at the assertion a Los Angeles deputy district attorney, who claims he suffered retaliation after suggesting sheriff’s investigators might have lied to obtain a warrant, may sue his superiors for violation of his civil rights.

The case involves Richard Ceballos, a Los Angeles prosecutor who was demoted after he urged his supervisors to drop a criminal case because he believed a sheriff’s deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit.

A ruling against Ceballos could affect the nation’s 20 million public employees by removing their ability to use the First Amendment as protection against supervisors’ retaliation for bringing government misconduct or other issues to light.

At issue is whether employers’ desires to operate efficient workplaces outweigh whistleblowers’ rights as citizens to speak out on matters of public interest.

The argument yesterday was the second time the court dealt with the case this term, apparently because of a tie vote during the justices’ internal conferences. The appeal was not resolved before Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito in late January.

Alito actively questioned all lawyers in the case, wondering whether employers would have to specify every job duty an employee has to avoid lawsuits like the one Ceballos filed.

Four other justices — including Chief Justice John Roberts — were skeptical of arguments by Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, Ceballos’ attorney, that public employees have free-speech rights when they speak out in an office or write memoranda.

Employees, she said, “should not be required to tell supervisors only what they want to hear.”

“Neither should a supervisor be required to get a report from an employee that’s way off,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, referring to employees who persist in making unsubstantiated charges of misconduct.

Scalia and Roberts questioned whether Ceballos’ allegations of police misconduct were correct and suggested that the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office had a right to try to control “a loose cannon,” as Scalia put it.

A Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that Ceballos could sue former District Attorney Gil Garcetti, Garcetti’s top deputy, and Deputy District Attorney Carol Najera.

Retaliation Claim

Ceballos claimed in his lawsuit that his supervisors retaliated against him after, as a calendar deputy in Pomona, he wrote a memorandum questioning a search warrant affidavit prepared by a deputy sheriff in a drug case and recommending the case be dismissed.

Najera and Frank Sunstedt, then head deputy district attorney, first asked for changes in the memo—which Ceballos made—and then decided the prosecution should not be dropped, Ceballos alleged.

Ceballos advised the defendant’s attorneys of his conclusions and testified at a suppression hearing, but a judge allowed the prosecution to proceed. The deputy district attorney claimed he was then demoted to trial deputy and reassigned to handle misdemeanors in El Monte.

Ceballos was later assigned to the office’s Public Integrity Division.

The Bush administration sided with the District Attorney’s Office, saying the government’s desire to maintain an efficient workplace outweighs an employee’s right to voice opinions about internal decision-making.

“When the government pays for somebody to do its work it has the absolute right to determine how that work will be performed,” Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler said.

If the justices side with the District Attorney’s Office, Robin-Vergeer said, employees would face a “perverse” result by being forced to go public — and not keep their concerns in-house — to ensure free-speech protection. Such an outcome would be more disruptive for government agencies, she said.

When Alito suggested employers want to know about problems, Robin-Vergeer said there is “much evidence” that supervisors don’t always like receiving “bad news.”

Ninth Circuit Ruling

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in his opinion for the Ninth Circuit, said that under the circuit’s 1988 decision in Roth v. Veterans’ Administration of the United States, 856 F.2d 1401, it is established law that a public employee who seeks to expose official misconduct is exercising a protected First Amendment right.

Noting that Roth involved a Veterans’ Administration “troubleshooter” who was fired after exposing corruption in reports prepared as part of his official duties, Reinhardt declared:

“Nor do our cases provide any support for the defendants’ contention that a public employee’s speech is deprived of First Amendment protection whenever those views are expressed, to government workers or others, pursuant to an employment responsibility.”

Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, writing separately, agreed the defendants lacked immunity under Roth, but said that case was “wrongly decided and...ought to be overruled.”

Otherwise, he argued, “what federal or state employment-based decision can possibly evade intrusive federal constitutional review?”

The First Amendment, O’Scannlain insisted, should protect public employees only when they are expressing their personal opinions — “those views he or she holds as a citizen and not as a public employee.”

But Reinhardt said the rule O’Scannlain advocated would be destructive of efforts to expose misconduct and improve governance. Judge Raymond C. Fisher concurred in the opinion authored by Reinhardt.

[WaTcHeR]

6/02/06 - HOUSTON - A Houston police officer who criticized the department on our air was fired Friday.

Officer Thomas Nixon showed up at the scene of head-on crash that came at the end of a high-speed chase in January. He criticized HPD's chase policy and said he was embarrassed to be a Houston officer at the time.

Officer Nixon was fired Friday for what the department calls his "inappropriate remarks" to the public.