officers and the public in danger.” (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 14). The Court finds such speech to be of significant concern to the general public, as it is analogous to “speech on crime rates, police staffing, equipment shortages and related budgetary matters” that “quite plainly involve matters of public concern.” Morris, 196 F.3d at 111; see White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 991 F.2d 1049, 1060 (2d Cir.1993) (stating that “a state police corps’ performance of its duties is a matter of public concern”). Indeed, there is little doubt that the public has great interest in acquiring information about the proper functioning of its police force — particularly where the information purports to directly relate to their own safety. See Cahill v. O’Donnell, 7 F.Supp.2d 341, 349 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>). That certain of Plaintiffs statements concern
holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern holding that investigations into purported police misconduct where civilians were or could have been harmed is a matter of public concern holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern