On orders from Deputy Chief Dixon, defendant Proctor prepared a "special report" on plaintiff Lee's statements. The Court is skeptical of the defendants' characterization of Lee's statements as "recklessly inaccurate speech". Are the Regulations Facially Unconstitutional? Consequently, the Court has held that "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. Lieutenant Joseph Herr, in an interdepartmental memorandum to Chief Coleman, advised that during the incident reported by The Washington Times the Latex gloves had failed to protect two firefighters from exposure to the victim's blood.
He parked his automobile on Department property with the bumper sticker attached.
Crazy Sticker Guy Store
Defendants' Opposition at 7. Firefighters Dypsky, Darmstead and Dowey To determine whether the expression of firefighters Dypsky, Darmstead and Dowey involved a matter of public concern, the Court must examine not only the actual words themselves, but also the context and manner of their expression. City of Montegomery, F. They argue that neither regulation provides firefighters with fair notice of the proscribed conduct; also, that the terms of each regulation are incapable of objective definition. Privately owned vehicles displaying any of the above-mentioned decals, stickers, etc. The defendants dispute the existence of the so-called Press Access Policy, arguing that at most it represents an interpretation of Memorandum 38 by certain Department officials.
The Court held, in Connick, that the employee's speech must involve a matter of public concern to invoke the Pickering balancing test; otherwise, a court should not interfere with the management decisions of the government as an employer. Several other courts have upheld facial challenges to "catch-all" provisions similar to the one found in Article VI, Section 4 of the Fire Department's Order Book. A firefighter seeking to comply with the regulation is not sure, for instance, whether a bumper sticker carrying the message "D. Laws which by their terms are susceptible to widely ranging interpretations encourage arbitrary and discriminatory application. Where such regulations fail to include "narrow, objective and definite standards to guide the licensing authority", the Supreme Court has struck them down as facially unconstitutional. In both Waters and Brasslett, the courts found the government's evidence of disruption to the police department lacking. The backdrop to this litigation paints a scene of continuing negative publicity about the District of Columbia's Fire Department.