Does a city police detective's complaint to a county attorney about officer misconduct meet the test for private speech?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, City of Spokane Detective Lonnie Tofsrud, learned that a police officer fabricated material facts in an arrest report of one of his informants. In accordance with his duty Petitioner told his own supervisor of the fabrications. The supervisor refused to forward the matter along the chain of command stating that based on past frustrations he would “not bang his head against that wall.” In consequence Petitioner stated to the supervisor he intended to bring the matter to the county prosecutor. His supervisor endorsed this decision. Petitioner was later sanctioned for recklessly and knowingly making statements outside his chain of command. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Petitioner’s practical duties included his complaint to the prosecutor because Tofsrud (1) exploited his employment-based access, and (2) his speech to the prosecutor did not disclose systemic abuse. App. 2-3. Following the circuit’s mandate this Court decided Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022). The question presented is: Following a supervisor’s refusal to act on a credible report of officer misconduct, does a city police detective’s complaint to a county attorney, given his access to and past collaboration with the prosecutor, meet the test for private speech? ii RELATED CASES United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Tofsrud v. City of Spokane, et al., No.: 21-35450 (May 9, 2022) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Tofsrud v. Spokane Police Department, et al., No.: 2:19-cv-00371 (June 2, 2021)