RANDALL E. BRICKEY v. ROBB HALL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Diaz, July 8, 2016,
Qualified Immunity – Chief of Police should have received qualified immunity regarding termination of officer that wrongly claimed misuse of departmental funds during campaign for public office

Police Officer running for office made statements suggesting departmental misuse of funds, neglect of duty.

The Court continually falls back to “was it clearly established at the time?” instead of just saying that the termination was justified, which presents an interesting (if somewhat confusing) read — since it occasionally refers to things as “not clearly established” when it means “established that this was not the case”

Qualified immunity protects government officials when they act in legal “gray areas.”
It does not protect government officials that act in violation of “clearly established… rights of which a reasonable person would have known”
What is “clearly established”? Either a case directly addressing the issue or a case that puts the constitutional question “beyond debate”

Pickering v. Board of Education

In retaliatory discharge case under Pickering, court is to “arrive at a balance” between the interests of the employee as a citizen and the employer in promoting efficiency of public services.

Test involves taking into account the context of the employee’s speech and “the extent to which it disrupts the operation and mission” of the institution.
Factors relevant to this inquiry include whether a public employee’s speech
(1) impaired the maintenance of discipline by supervisors;
(2) impaired harmony among coworkers;
(3) damaged close personal relationships;
(4) impeded the performance of the public employee’s duties;
(5) interfered with the operation of the institution;
(6) undermined the mission of the institution;
(7) was communicated to the public or to coworkers in private;
(8) conflicted with the responsibilities of the employee within the institution; and
(9) abused the authority and public accountability that the employee’s role entailed.

Police officials are entitled to impose more restrictions on speech than other public employers because a police force is “`paramilitary’-discipline is demanded, and freedom must be correspondingly denied.