1
Case Study Critique- Stress and Conflicts
Zoe Callicoatt
Liberty University
CJUS 530
Dr. Davies Sasere
November 10th, 2024
2
Facts
The case discussed in the study is Garrity v. New Jersey. In Garrity, local New Jersey
police officers who were the subjects of a public corruption probe were interviewed by state
investigators. The officers were told that they did not have to answer any questions, but, if they
did, their answers could be used against them in criminal proceedings. The officers also were
informed that New Jersey law provides that a failure to answer questions concerning their duties
during a criminal probe, even when the answers might incriminate them, could result in their
removal from office. Several officers answered questions put to them after receiving this warning
and subsequently were tried in state criminal court where their answers were used against them.
Upon conviction, these officers appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court that affirmed that the
officers' statements were made voluntarily and, therefore, were admissible under both the New
Jersey and the U.S. Constitutions. The case study did a great job laying out these facts so that the
reader could understand what happened in the case in the end.
The case law since the Garrity decision clearly holds that only the threat of severe
administrative sanctions will trigger the Garrity protection.- This case established the "Garrity
Warning" which must be given to public employees before questioning in internal investigations,
informing them that they can refuse to answer questions that could incriminate them but may
face job consequences for doing so. In the "Garrity v. New Jersey" case, a group of New Jersey
police officers were questioned during an investigation into alleged "ticket fixing" and were told
that if they refused to answer questions, they could be fired from their jobs;-when they answered
questions, their statements were later used against them in criminal proceedings, leading to the
Supreme Court ruling that their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated
because they were essentially forced to incriminate themselves under threat of losing their
3
employment;-this established the "Garrity Warning" which protects public employees from being
compelled to answer questions that could incriminate them during internal investigations if they
are threatened with job loss for refusing to answer.
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Garrity v. New Jersey that “a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment occurs when the government uses a police officer's statement in a
criminal trial against that officer when the statement resulted from his being told that he might
lose his job if he failed to answer the questions” (Brooks, pg. 26, 2002). The Constitution does
not prohibit taking severe administrative action, including employment termination, against
individuals who lie during an administrative investigation.-The Supreme Court has 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.
Alternative Solution
An alternative solution to the "Garrity" case, where a public employee is being
investigated for potential criminal activity, would be to grant the employee immunity from
criminal prosecution for their statements during the internal investigation, allowing the employer
to compel answers without violating the employee's Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination;-essentially, providing a "use immunity" where the employee's statements cannot
be used directly against them in a criminal case, but could still be used for disciplinary actions
4
within the agency. Where a Garrity warning promises the employee that he or she will not be
forced to answer questions, the Kalkines warning promises the employee that he or she will not
be criminally prosecuted for his or her answers. The Kalkines warning could also be an
alternative solution. A "Kalkines warning" is a legal notice given to a government employee
during an internal investigation, informing them that they must answer questions truthfully, even
if the answers could be incriminating, as their statements cannot be used against them in a
criminal prosecution, but refusing to answer could lead to disciplinary action, including
termination;-essentially, it grants "use immunity" for their answers in exchange for cooperation
with the investigation
Conclusion
The case study draws the following conclusions: The Garrity ruling imposes significant
restraints on law enforcement administrators investigating misconduct allegations within an
agency. However, nothing in Garrity prohibits forcing cooperation by law enforcement
employees with internal investigators. While those 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.
5
References
Brooks, M. E. (2002). Statements compelled from law enforcement employees.FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin,71(6), 26-31. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?
url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/statements-compelled-law-enforcement-
employees/docview/204147078/se-2
