Aycock v. Police Committee of Bd. of Aldermen of City of Atlanta, s. 49710-49714

• Decision Date: 22 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 1,Nos. 49710-49714,s. 49710-49714,1
• Citation: 133 Ga.App. 883,212 S.E.2d 456
• Parties: J. S. AYCOCK v. POLICE COMMITTEE OF the BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF ATLANTA (five cases)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 456

212 S.E.2d 456

133 Ga.App. 883

J. S. AYCOCK v. POLICE COMMITTEE OF the BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF

ATLANTA (five cases).

Nos. 49710-49714.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Jan. 22, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1975.

Scott Walters, Jr., East Point, for appellant.

Henry L. Bowden, John E. Dougherty, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

BELL, Chief Judge.

These five appeals all concern adverse personnel actions taken against the appellant, a police officer of the City of Atlanta. He was subjected to summary suspension without pay on three occasions and demoted from detective to patrolman, all of which were imposed by the Chief of Police of the City of Atlanta. He appealed these actions to the city's police committee. Prior to hearing the appeals, written charges of misconduct were served on him. The appeals and a trial on the charges were heard at the same time. The police committee denied the appeals and found appellant guilty of the written charges and discharged him from employment. All of these actions were based on violations of rules of the Police Department prohibiting a policeman from publicly criticizing the official actions of his superior officers. The appellant's petitions for certiorari to the Fulton Superior Court were all denied. Appellant limits his appeal to this court to two basic issues. They are: (1) The constitutionality of the violated rules of the Police Department and (2) whether appellant was denied procedural due process of law. The rules are: 'Patrolmen and all other members of the department are strictly forbidden from criticizing the official acts of their superior officers . . .'; and 'Any member of the police force may be punished by the Police Committee of the Board of Aldermen, either by reprimand, suspension for not longer than 90 days, reduction in rank or dismissal from the force, upon conviction of any one of the following offenses: 5. Violations of any of the Rules and Regulations. 9. Conduct unbecoming an officer. 26. Publicly criticizing the official action of a superior officer.' The public statements, which appellant admits making, included calling the Chief of Police a bully; criticizing the Internal Security Division of the Police Department for its handling of a particular matter; stating that the Chief of Police keeps acting like a child; and that the Chief '. . . gets hit and he keeps on hitting back. A professional policeman ought to be able to take his licks-take criticism or he ought to step down.' Held:

1. The appellant argues that the rules which he violated are overly broad and violate his constitutional right of free speech. However, the freedom of expression guarantee under our Constitution has been consistently recognized as being narrower than an unlimited license to talk; and regulatory statutes not intended to control the content of speech but incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise are not regarded as violating the constitutional guarantee when justified by valid governmental interests. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36, 81 S.Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105. A municipal police department is a para-military organization which is charged with the responsibility of protecting the public. Thus a vital public interest is involved and to satisfactorily perform this duty the employees of a police department must be governed by reasonable rules and regulations which will insure that its public mission is carred on effectively and efficiently. 'It is clear that such persons have the right under our law to...