GARRITY V. NEW JERSEY
CASE STUDY CRITIQUE
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION
DR. WELLS
“Fact”
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Garrity versus New Jersey, This history making case start with
six police officers including the Police Chief being investigate by state investigation (Attorney
General) for fixing tickets. Before the officers were interview, they all were warned that anything
they said might be used against him in any state criminal proceeding; that they had the privilege
to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; but that if he refused to
answer he would be subject to removal from office. The officers would answer the questions, no
immunity was granted and the state of New Jersey did not have an immunity statute relevant to
this situation at the time. Many of the responses were used to prosecute the officers in future
prosecutions concerning conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws.
“Decisions”
The Officers were convicted and the convictions were sustained over there protests that
their statements were coerced, because if they did not answer, they would lose their jobs. The
officers appealed their convictions, arguing that their statements were coerced and thus in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their convictions were upheld by the State
Supreme Court, despite the claim that the statements of the officers were coerced by reason of
the fact that if they refused to answer they could, under the New Jersey forfeiture-of-office
statute, lose their positions. That statute provides that a public employee shall be removed from
office if he refuses to testify or answer any material question before any commission or body
which has the right to inquire about matters relating to his office or employment on the ground
that his answer may incriminate him. On the ground that the only real issue in the case was the
voluntariness of the statements, the State Supreme Court declined to pass upon the
constitutionality of the statute; though the statute was considered relevant for the bearing it had
on the voluntary character of the statements used to convict the officers. They appealed their
convictions to the United States Supreme Court and would later be heard in there. The U.S.
Supreme Court determined that public employees could not be forced, under clear threat of
discipline, to violate the principles of self-incrimination. This decision established what have
come to be called Garrity Rights for public employees. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case
that if a public employee is ordered to answer questions by their employer under the threat of
discipline about a potential criminal matter, they are not voluntarily waive their rights against
self-incrimination, but are making statements under duress. The police, to further investigation or
gather evidence to be used in a criminal investigation, cannot use statements made under these
conditions. The protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced
statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat
of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members
of our body politic. The choice given officials was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate
themselves.
“Solution”
I believe the decisions that previous courts made were wrong and misguided by the evidence that
were collected. The officials from this agency that was in charge of reporting these issues forgot
about their duties as internal affairs investigators. From all the research I have done on this case,
they care more about the criminal investigation then finding out the truth if these officers really
did the incident that’s being brought against them. The decision that the United States Supreme
Court made on the case, I feel it was appropriate for all the evidence that was displayed to the
court. In no ways should anyone be allowed to self-incrimination themselves by being force to
tell on themselves. In addition, the consequences of not doing so could result in the termination
of one job, that it clearly a violate of one fifth amendment right. Shortly after the Garrity case,
the Court reviewed a case that was the flip scenario. In Gardner versus Broderick, the Court was
confronted with another investigation involving a police officer. In Gardner, a police officer was
subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury investigating the bribery and corruption of police
officers. An officer appearing before the grand jury exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege
after being warned that his failure to sign a waiver of the privilege might lead to his dismissal
from the police department. Because he refused to waive the privilege against self-incrimination,
the officer was fired. In its review of the case, the Court decided that a police officer may not
refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of his or her duties as long as the officer is
immune from the use or derivative use of his or her answers in a subsequent criminal
prosecution. However, an officer cannot be forced to waive his or her 5thAmendment privilege
under the threat of dismissal from his or her position. An officer cannot be fired for failing to
relinquish the 5th Amendment privilege. (Gardner & Broderick, 1968)
“Conclusion”
This landmark case has increase individual knowledge to who, what, when, where, and how
Garrity applies. The essence of the Garrity warning is simple. It applies only under an
administrative investigation into a criminal act. If at any time during the course of an
investigation it is determined that there has been a criminal act, Garrity will apply and will be
read to the officer. In this day and time with police excessive force being an issue we hear about
often, this need to be something employees be trained to understand the process. If they become
involved in a situation, the investigation will go smoother with an educated employee.
References
Gardner v. Broderick - 392 U.S. 273 (1968)
Eric P. Daigle, "Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question," Chief’s
Counsel, The Police Chief 79 (December 2012): 12–13.
