Running head: STATEMENTS COMPELLED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
Case Critique 1
Zachary Frank
Liberty University
CJUS530
Professor Wells
05 June 2023
1
STATEMENTS COMPELLED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
Abstract
Law enforcement employees such a police officers are faced with numerous instances where
their character can be questioned during an investigation. The Garrity rule is something that
police administrators must be mindful of when questioning their employees. When police
officer’s jobs are forced to answer questions, or risk expulsion from the force they must be
protected from self-incrimination. This is when the Garrity Rule comes into play. Police officers
cannot be forced to self-incriminate themselves based off the threat of losing their job. The
immunity they’re granted allows them to answer required questions but not have that statement
used against them in a court of law. These restrictions can make it difficult for police
administrators to investigate crimes within their organizations and ultimately get a guilty verdict
in court, but the safeguards are there to protect the constitutional rights of the police officers.
2
STATEMENTS COMPELLED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
Facts
Statements that officers give that potentially can lead to being self-incriminating are a
point of contention, or at least they were until Supreme Court case of Garrity v. New Jersey. In
the case it was held that police officers could not be required to forfeit their right to avoid self-
incrimination (Justia - US Supreme Court, 1967). In the case study by Michael Brooks he did
extensive research into the background of the court cases that have helped shape the Garrity Rule
today. As he points out through his research, there is a lot of unclarity about how it is determined
when the Garrity Rule applies. There are strict adherences for police organizations to follow such
that if a local or municipal governance requires officers to answer questions. “The First Circuit
ruled that to trigger Garrity, a public employee must show that he was ordered to waive his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination and that a statute or municipal ordinance must
mandate the dismissal of an employee who fails to do so” (Brooks, 2002).
Decision
In this case study the decision made was that police officers could utilize the Garrity rule
to their advantage and prevent themselves from being self-incriminated when required to answer
questions. Police administrators in the organization had some ability to encourage cooperation
from police officers but not necessarily require them to self-incriminate. Importantly Brooks
points out, “More significant, the law enforcement administrators should not be concerned that
routine investigative reports will be cloaked with any Garrity immunity” (Brooks, 2002). This
means that police officers could not use the Garrity Rule to prevent them from doing their daily
required police work such as normal reports. Police administrations have the authority to fire
police officers if they fail to do their reports because ultimately that is their job.
3
STATEMENTS COMPELLED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
Alternative Solutions
There are other options that could have been determined from this case study and could
potentially made the clarity of the Garrity more standardized. Police officers need to be aware of
the different investigations that are taking place such as a criminal investigation or an internal
investigation. These determinations can determine the requirements for police officers to answer
as well as determine if they need to worry about losing their job for lack of cooperation. As the
Southern States PBA points out, “Your immediate concern is to establish whether you are being
questioned for criminal allegations or for administrative rule violations” (Southern States PBA,
2012). These determinations are often not expressed to officers or taught and can ultimately put
police officers in bad situations that could have been avoided.
Conclusion
The reality for police officers is that Miranda rights and Garrity rights are often confusing
and the second is lacking in mass knowledge among officers. Police officers need to receive
proper training on Garrity rules so that their rights are protected, and they are not taken
advantage of by administration officials. Police officers have a very difficult job, but they are
human just like the average citizen. They are going to make mistakes and their due process
should be the same as an average citizen. Garrity rules try to provide that coverage for officers so
that they are not coerced into self-incriminating themselves just so that they can prevent
themselves from losing their job. Police officers are often held to a higher standard especially
from the public and the media. John 15:13 states, “Greater love has no one than this, that
someone lay down his life for his friends” (ESV Online, 2001).
4
STATEMENTS COMPELLED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
References
Brooks, M. (2002). Statements compelled from law enforcement employees. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 71(6), 26–31. https://www.proquest.com/docview/204147078?
accountid=12085&forcedol=true&forcedol=true
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. https://esv.literalword.com/
Justia - US Supreme Court. (1967). Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/
Southern States PBA. (2012, October 2). Garrity information: Protect yourself - know your
rights under garrity rule. Www.sspba.org.
https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/Garrity_Information__Protect_yourself___Know_you
r_rights_under_Garrity_Rule_87.jsp
5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
