Federal appeals panel: Virginia county wrong to muzzle officer's speech
By The Associated Press
02.05.03
RICHMOND, Va. — Officials in Albemarle County were not protected by government immunity when they barred a county police officer from speaking against the county in 1998, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
A federal judge in Charlottesville ruled in favor of Officer Karl Mansoor in February 2002, calling a gag order imposed by county police after Mansoor criticized the county and police "excessive" and unconstitutional.
The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, rejecting the county's arguments that Police Chief John Miller, former Capt. Richard Douglas Rhoads and Mark Trank, a county attorney, enjoyed qualified immunity that allowed them to implement the Plan of Assistance, which restricted Mansoor's speech pertaining to his job.
"But, in fact, matters 'relating to your employment' clearly can encompass matters of public concern. For example, the Plan apparently would restrict Mansoor's right to speak about perceived racial problems within the department, a right we have explicitly held to be of public concern," the three-judge appeals panel ruled.
U.S. District Judge James H. Michael Jr. has not determined the amount of damages to be awarded to Mansoor for violation of his First Amendment rights, the appeals court noted.
Mansoor's dispute with the police department began in 1997 when he started complaining about various police policies and publicly criticized the county executive and a proposed police pay plan at a Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mansoor said police began targeting him by denying him overtime work and training and ultimately helping to bring about a panic disorder. The officer took a 40-day medical leave and returned to work but was put on administrative duty because of his "impaired judgment and related behavior," the appeals court stated.
Following a department-requested psychological evaluation, Mansoor was allowed to return to work if he agreed to a plan that barred him from communicating with any "third parties" about anything "critical or negative towards the county executive, the chief of police ... or any other county official or employee."