that any group marching in uniform is speaking for the NYPD and that the NYPD has a right to control the content of its own expression. In our view, neither argument satisfies defendants’ burden of justification. It is undisputedly true that the NYPD has a strong interest in maintaining control over how its uniform and symbols are used. Requiring NYPD officers to wear their uniforms while on duty makes them “more readily recognizable to the public, encourages esprit de corps, and subordinates personal preferences in favor of the overall group mission,” all of which furthers the police department’s mandate to promote public safety. INS v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 855 F.2d 1454, 1466 (9th Cir.1988); cf. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Correspondingly, prohibiting the unauthorized
holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that deference is owed to police department grooming regulations under the fourteenth amendment due process clause based on such organizations overall need for discipline esprit de corps and uniformity holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment