Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Id. We have long recognized “the importance of deference” to law enforcement officials when speech threatens to undermine the functions of organizations charged with maintaining public safety. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Trenton, 867 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989); Cherry v. Picked, 188 Fed.Appx. 465, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[I]n the context of police departments, we have emphasized that the court should show ‘deference to the city’s judgment on the matter of discouraging public dissension within its safety forces.’ ” (citation omitted)); cf. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247-48, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Thus, although it is not “the rule of this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity (B) holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records (C) holding that policies regulating the uniforms and conduct of police officers are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless individual officers can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation based as it is on the countys method of organizing its police force and the promotion of safety of persons and property (D) holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report (E) holding pleading was sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss based on allegations that two police officers were under the control and supervision of the county when they maliciously and intentionally allowed and encouraged the police dog to attack and bite cox in clear and substantial excess of the force needed to restrain and detain him and that the two officers subsequently beat and further injured cox without justification
Output (English): holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records