Dible v. City of Chandler

515 F.3d 918 (2008)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Dible v. City of Chandler

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
515 F.3d 918 (2008)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Ronald and Megan Dible (plaintiffs) operated a website that hosted sexually explicit photographs of Megan. The Dibles sold access to nude pictures and videos of Megan. The pictures sometimes included Ronald. However, only one photograph showed Ronald’s face. At the time of the website’s operation, Ronald worked as a police officer for the Chandler Police Department (CPD) (defendant) in the City of Chandler, Arizona (city) (defendant). Ronald did not inform the CPD that he operated the website, which he was obligated to do because the operation of the site constituted outside employment. Eventually, members of CPD and members of the press learned about the Dibles’ website. The press began reporting negatively on the website. Police Chief Bobby Harris (defendant) placed Ronald on administrative leave and opened an investigation. When questioned, Ronald provided some misleading answers. The investigation revealed that many officers and other CPD employees felt that the publicity from the website was severely impacting their working situation and cratering morale. Ronald’s supervisor recommended his dismissal, finding that he had violated the department’s rule prohibiting police officers from bringing discredit to the city. The supervisor also found that Ronald lied to investigators during the investigation. After Chief Harris approved Ronald’s dismissal, Ronald appealed to the city’s merit board. Several officers testified about the disruptive effects that the public’s reaction to the website had caused in their roles as police officers. The merit board affirmed Ronald’s discharge. The Dibles brought an action against CPD, the city, and Chief Harris for violation of Ronald’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CPD, the city, and Chief Harris. The Dibles appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fernandez, J.)

Concurrence (Canby, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 747,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership