GARCETTI V . CEBALLOS (No . 04-473 , Decided 30 May 2006 )The case of Garcetti v . Ceballos involves the question of whether or not the First Amendment protects a government employee from disciplinary measures based on speech made by the said employee pursuant to his official duties . Richard Ceballos was a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney ‘s Office since 1989 . At the time of the occurrence of the events relevant to this case , he was a calendar deputy in the Pomona branch . Sometime in 2000 , Ceballos was contacted by a defense attorney concerning a pending criminal case , which attorney stated that there were inaccuracies in the affidavit instrumental in the obtention of a crucial search warrant , and informed the former that he had filed a motion to challenge he issuance of the said warrant . Ceballos conducted an investigation and made an ocular inspection of the premises in question . When he compared his findings with what was stated in the affidavit , he determined that the said affidavit was inaccurate and contained substantial misrepresentations . Based on his findings , he made a memo with a recommendation for the dismissal of the case . A meeting with the affiant , a Deputy Sheriff from the Los Angeles County Sheriff ‘s Department , was thereafter held , with Ceballos being criticized for his performance . Despite his recommendations , Ceballos ‘ supervisors decided to proceed with the case . During the hearing on the motion challenging the search warrant , Ceballos testified for the defense as to his findings .Notwithstanding is testimony , the trial court upheld the validity of he issuance of the warrant . Ceballos thereafter brought a complaint under the employment grievance machinery for what he claimed to be retaliatory acts against him by his supervisors , i .e , reassignment to a trial deputy position , transfer to another courthouse , and denial of promotion . His grievance being dismissed , he brought an action in the US District Court for the Central District of California under Rev . Stat . 1979 , 42 USC 1983 , alleging that his supervisors violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by retaliating against him because of the memo he made . Ceballos ‘ supervisors moved for summary judgment , which was granted by the District Court in their favor , stating that the contents of the memo were written pursuant to his duties as an employee , and were thus not covered by the First Amendment . On appeal , the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the content of Ceballos ‘ memorandum were protected speech under the First Amendment . Relying on Connick v .Myers (461 US 138 , 1983 , the court determined that Ceballos had made his statements on a matter of public concern , without expressly stating if he made such statement as a citizen . Following the balancing test provided in Pickering v . Board of Educaton (391 US 563 , 1968 , the court then weighed Ceballos ‘ interests against those of his supervisors in responding to it , and found in his favor . When the case was originally elevated to the Supreme Court , it granted certiorari (543 US…