top of page

The Santa Ramona Chronicles

Local News & Events

Recent Posts

City Council Controversy

Office of the Mayor

Carly Brucato-Angel


To: Chief of Police Governor Subject: Violations of On-Duty Policy and Procedures by Seargent Roman Ramirez

Chief, Governor.

Tonight, Sgt Ramirez violated multiple policies of Police Departments nationwide. While in uniform, on-duty, Sgt Ramirez made insulting and critical comments about the Mayor of the City. You would first think, this is protected speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled:

" Supreme Judicial Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in McAuliffe v. New Bedford (1892): “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he does not have a constitutional right to be a policeman.” "

This has been both quoted and noted multiple times by multiple courts.

"The court later refined this public concern and balancing inquiry in Connick v. Myers (1983), a case involving renowned New Orleans district attorney Harry Connick Sr. (father of the famous musician), who fired an assistant district attorney for distributing a questionnaire at work that criticized office policies. The court sided 5-4 with Connick, the majority characterizing the assistant DA’s questionnaire as mainly “an employee grievance about internal office policy.”"

"The so-called Pickering-Connick balancing test served as the legal lodestar for several decades until the U.S. Supreme Court introduced a categorical threshold test. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the court declared that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official job duties, they have no free speech protection at all—even if the speech blows the whistle on alarming governmental corruption. The Garcetti decision left many public employees without a constitutional remedy, forcing them to rely on whistleblower [sic] statutes, which vary from state to state and may not protect their speech."

And as the ABA states....

"Nonetheless, public employees often lose free speech cases because courts defer to an employer’s judgment that the employee’s inflammatory posts will cause disharmony or make the public view the public employer with derision or disrespect."

Tonight's comments by Sgt Ramirez clearly reach that standard. This took place during a official City Government meeting with him there in his official capacity.

His statements:

""Your conduct is disgusting, and if it were up to me, I would have you removed from office. I highly suggest that you resign, you are UNFIT to be Mayor of this town""

These are clearly inflamatory.[sic] And they were made by a uniformed, on-duty Police Official, who has command rank.

This calls for immediate disiciplary [sic] actions. I am not calling for his removal as a member of the Police. However, he clearly shows that he does not have the temperment [sic] to have Command Rank. My office demands that he be suspended then reduced in Rank to Traffic Officer.

Carly Brucato-Angel Mayor