A prosecutor writes a memorandum expressing concerns about a ...

[schs14]

A prosecutor writes a memorandum expressing concerns about a search warrant issued by a judge. The prosecutor is terminated for cause. Discuss whether the government abridged the prosecutor's free speech rights.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Discuss the public duty doctrine with regard to definition, theory, and application. Using logical arguments, explain why you agree or disagree with the public duty doctrine.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[jrpg123456]

Answer to Question 1

The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free speech. In determining whether speech by a public employee is protected, the question is whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is no, the government has broader discretion to restrict the speech, similar to a private employer. If the individual spoke as a citizen on an issue of public concern, the government can restrict speech only to the extent necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the employer. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district attorney's memorandum outlining his concerns with a search warrant did not constitute protected speech, and thus his termination was not an abridgement of free speech, because the memorandum was written in the course of his official job responsibilities.

Answer to Question 2

The public duty doctrine holds that governments and corresponding agencies owe duties to the public at large but not to individual citizens. In short, this doctrine holds that a duty to all translates as a duty to no one.. The doctrine is designed to keep the courts from meddling in the affairs of the legislative and executive branches of the government. Only when a special duty to the plaintiff exists will the duty to a specific individual be found and liability accrue.

[schs14]

TY

[jrpg123456]

You're welcome