Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
City of San Diego v. Roe
United States Supreme Court
543 U.S. 77 (2004)
In City of San Diego versus Roe, the court pondered the first amendment claims of a police officer with an interesting sideline.
John Roe was a San Diego police officer who made extra money selling on adults only eBay.
His username was code three stud, a play on the code used for high priority police calls. His user profile identified him as employed in law enforcement. He sold police equipment, including official San Diego Police Department uniforms and men's underwear.
Roe also produced custom videos. In one video, he stripped off a police uniform and masturbate it. The uniform wasn't specifically a San Diego uniform, but it was clearly a police uniform.
Roe's sergeant discovered that code three stud was selling official uniforms on eBay. This led him to Roe's video collection and then to Roe's photograph in his profile, which allowed the sergeant to identify him. The sergeant shared this information with a police captain who shared it with internal affairs, which launched an investigation.
An undercover officer requested a custom video. Roe complied with a film in his usual style, featuring a plot involving a traffic citation and a police uniform.
This was deemed conduct unbecoming of an officer. The department ordered Roe to stop selling his wares on the Internet.
Roe kept selling his videos, so the department fired him. Roe sued the department, alleging that his termination violated his first amendment right to free speech.
The district court dismissed the case.
On appeal, the ninth circuit found that Roe's expressive conduct was unrelated to Roe's work, was it motivated by any grievance against the department, occurred outside the workplace, and was directed at a segment of the general public. It concluded that Roe's speech was therefore on a matter of public concern and was protected as citizen commentary on matters of public concern. The court reversed the district court's judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-san-diego-v-roe
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-san-diego-v-roe
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
City of San Diego v. Roe
United States Supreme Court
543 U.S. 77 (2004)
In City of San Diego versus Roe, the court pondered the first amendment claims of a police officer with an interesting sideline.
John Roe was a San Diego police officer who made extra money selling on adults only eBay.
His username was code three stud, a play on the code used for high priority police calls. His user profile identified him as employed in law enforcement. He sold police equipment, including official San Diego Police Department uniforms and men's underwear.
Roe also produced custom videos. In one video, he stripped off a police uniform and masturbate it. The uniform wasn't specifically a San Diego uniform, but it was clearly a police uniform.
Roe's sergeant discovered that code three stud was selling official uniforms on eBay. This led him to Roe's video collection and then to Roe's photograph in his profile, which allowed the sergeant to identify him. The sergeant shared this information with a police captain who shared it with internal affairs, which launched an investigation.
An undercover officer requested a custom video. Roe complied with a film in his usual style, featuring a plot involving a traffic citation and a police uniform.
This was deemed conduct unbecoming of an officer. The department ordered Roe to stop selling his wares on the Internet.
Roe kept selling his videos, so the department fired him. Roe sued the department, alleging that his termination violated his first amendment right to free speech.
The district court dismissed the case.
On appeal, the ninth circuit found that Roe's expressive conduct was unrelated to Roe's work, was it motivated by any grievance against the department, occurred outside the workplace, and was directed at a segment of the general public. It concluded that Roe's speech was therefore on a matter of public concern and was protected as citizen commentary on matters of public concern. The court reversed the district court's judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-san-diego-v-roe
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/city-of-san-diego-v-roe
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
