High Court Trims Whistleblower's Rights...

[Makalakumu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speech;_ylt=AoIxU4_VCHeQZCMz6pi7djCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Supporters said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.

No more Deep Throat, or no more squeaky wheels?

 

[modarnis]

Probably worth reading the whole case. Click on the link at the bottom of the above post that shoots you the actual opinion. One significant fact is that despite this Assistant DA's memos and testimony on behalf of the defense in the case, the trial court in the criminal case did not supress the search. Why is that a significant fact in this? Trial courts always try to err on the side of a defendant's rights when there is a close call on a suppression issue. Here, even with an ADA testifying on behalf of the defense they rule against the defendant. No judge would want to stick there neck out in that scenario unless their was clear cut probable cause for the search