## Facts

- Ronald Dible was a City of Chandler police officer; he and his wife, Megan Dible, operated a commercial sexually explicit website featuring photographs and videos of Megan (using a pseudonym), often with Ronald and others.
- The website included free preview images and paid access to explicit content; the couple also offered a CD-ROM for sale.
- The material was created and posted for profit and was not intended as social or political commentary.
- Chandler Police Department rules prohibited conduct that might bring discredit to city service and required prior approval for outside employment.
- Dible did not seek approval for this outside commercial activity and attempted to conceal his involvement.
- After the department learned of Dible’s role, it placed him on administrative leave, investigated, and terminated him.

## Issues

1. Whether terminating Dible for producing and operating a sexually explicit commercial website violated the First Amendment as applied to public employees.
2. Whether the same facts supported constitutional claims for privacy and freedom of association.
3. Whether the police chief was entitled to qualified immunity.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City and all defendants on all claims.
- The court held the City could discipline Dible for the off-duty commercial explicit website without violating the First Amendment.
- The court rejected the privacy and associational claims based on the same conduct.
- The police chief was entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation was shown.
- Summary judgment was also affirmed on the state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee expression is evaluated under the Pickering line of cases; threshold consideration includes whether the activity relates to a matter of public concern, followed by balancing employee interests against the government employer’s operational and reputational interests.
- A police department may discipline an officer for off-duty, commercially motivated, sexually explicit conduct that is publicly disseminated and that undermines public confidence in law enforcement, even if not formally part of job duties.
- Under City of San Diego v. Roe, a law enforcement agency’s interest in preserving discipline, integrity, and community trust can outweigh an officer’s interest in commercial, sexually explicit expression lacking public-commentary content.
- Conduct rules aimed at preventing discredit to the service, and violations of outside-employment approval requirements, support the employer’s justification for discipline.
- When no constitutional right is violated on the alleged facts, individual officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a city could terminate a police officer for participating in and operating a for-profit sexually explicit website that became associated with his status as an officer and violated departmental rules, and it rejected related privacy, association, and state-law claims while granting qualified immunity to the police chief.


Dible v. City of Chandler, 515 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008)