Statements Compelled From Law Enforcement Employees

• NCJ Number: 195411
• Journal: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 71 Issue: 6 Dated: June 2002 Pages: 26-31
• Author(s): Michael E. Brooks J.D.
• Date Published: June 2002
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article examines the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) for the investigation of misconduct allegations within a police agency.

Abstract

In "Garrity," the U.S. Supreme Court held that a violation of the 14th Amendment occurs when the government uses a police officer's statement in a criminal trial against that officer when the statement resulted from his or her being told that he or she might lose his or her job if he or she failed to answer the questions. The Supreme Court subsequently held that a police officer can be threatened with job loss for failure to answer questions or otherwise cooperate with investigators; however, any answers given under such circumstances cannot be used against the officer in a criminal trial. This ruling has led to the creation of the so-called "Garrity warning" used in internal investigations. This warning, in various forms, advises law enforcement employees that they must answer questions posed by investigators or face the possibility of administrative sanction, including job loss. The warning also advises that answers provided by the employees cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding. In cases where criminal prosecution against law enforcement employees is contemplated, the employees are advised that they do not have to answer questions but that any answers can be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding. This article focuses on what triggers "Garrity" protection and discusses what administrative options a law enforcement manager has if any employee refuses to voluntarily answer questions during an internal investigation. The article advises that nothing in "Garrity" prohibits forcing cooperation by law enforcement employees with internal investigators. Although investigators must be careful to avoid "compelling" a subject to provide information when criminal prosecution is contemplated against that subject, they still have significant power to encourage cooperation by all law enforcement employees. More significant, the law enforcement administrators should not be concerned that routine investigative reports will be cloaked with any "Garrity" immunity. 28 notes