01-1460 Delgado v. Jones, et al.

Listen to this article

“On the facts of this complaint, Delgado had information about criminal activity that potentially involved an immediate relative of an elected official, who also happened to be a close personal friend of Chief Jones. Fully divulging this information to his superiors may have been consistent with his obligations as a police officer in seeking an independent and objective investigation. And it was hardly in his personal interest to antagonize the Chief. See Linnhart, 771 F.2d at 1010. But we think Delgado had considerable discretion about how he communicated the information up the chain of command. His disclosure went far beyond some rote, routine discharge of an assigned duty, as in Gonzalez. Our holding in Gonzalez is limited to routine discharge of assigned functions, where there is no suggestion of public motivation. In the case now before the court, Delgado’s communications with his superiors were designed not only to convey information of possible crimes, but also additional facts that were relevant to the manner and scope of any subsequent investigation. Effective police work would be hopelessly compromised if police officers could be retaliated against for communicating factual details (e.g., a supervisor’s relationship to a criminal suspect) that bear on the department’s ability to conduct an objective investigation. The fact that a police officer’s job responsibilities may in some measure overlap with motivations of a well-meaning citizen does not change this analysis.”

“Delgado has alleged sufficient facts to establish that his speech is constitutionally protected and that the defendants retaliated against him because of it. Therefore, his complaint states a valid First Amendment retaliation claim.”

“In the case now before the court, Delgado was singled out by the former arrestee and given information on alleged criminal activity. Once this information was reduced to the ‘Matter of’ memorandum, it was forwarded by Delgado’s captain to Deputy Chief Ray with a recommendation that any subsequent investigation be performed by an outside law enforcement agency. Such a situation is certainly not routine. Moreover, because the subject of Delgado’s communication was highly relevant to an independent and objective investigation of criminal activity and was not motivated by the personal interests of Delgado – in short, it was a matter of public concern – a public official knowledgeable about relevant case law could not have reasonably believed that he was free to retaliate by ordering an unwanted transfer to a less desirable job or by the manipulation of Delgado’s vacation schedule.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Cudahy, J.