The San Diego officer involved decided to make a little extra money by selling on the internet a video of himself masturbating while wearing a police uniform. ?Although the police uniform was not his Department?s, his internet user profile identified him as a police officer.? ?When the Department found out, it fired him. ?The district court granted summary judgment to the City, the Ninth Circuit reversed. ?It concluded the officer was terminated for constitutionally protected activity outside of work.? ?A unanimous Supreme Court saw it differently and reversed in a per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court found it particularly significant that the officer had linked his activities with police work and were designed to exploit that image. ?The Supreme Court then ruled that his work-related speech ?activities ?were ?not ?directed ?towards? an issue of public concern, so they lacked any First Amendment protection. ?The Court concluded that ?this is not a close case.? ?San Diego v. Roe, No. 03-1669 (12/06/04).