Case Study Critique
1
Case Study Critique Assignment
Farhat Mir
Liberty University
PADM501
Professor Name:Robert Paterson
November 11, 2025
Case Study Critique
2
Abstract:
Fifth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution are to protect citizen’s rights against legal
proceedings. Protection against self-incrimination is protected by the Fifth Amendment and the
due process and equal protection under the law to all the citizens equally is protected by the
fourteenth amendment. Private and public sector employees are protected by these two
constitutional amendments. Government and civil sector employees have the right against
selfincrimination. There are always cases of misconduct against employees and in public
administration law enforcement officers during misconduct cases is an example where
employees want to practice their right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court case
Garrity vs. New Jersey (1967) is a landmark case about police officers who were compelled to
give a statement about a ticket fixing complaint which was used against him in the court of law.
This landmark case is about protecting individual constitutional rights and at the same time
maintaining police officers' integrity. Garrity principle is a tool for the officers to protect them
during internal affairs investigations at the same time it provides law enforcement organizations
the opportunity to conduct thorough investigations. It's like the fruit of a poisonous tree Garrity
vs. New Jersey (1967) clarified that any statement given by an employee after giving the
employee a threat of losing the job cannot be used against that employee in the court of law. In
this critique I will discuss the facts and decision of the case study Garrity warning: To give or not
to give, that is the question by Eric Daigle. This case critique will also provide my opinion on the
case decision and whether it's useful to use Garrity principal in internal affairs investigations.
Facts:
Case Study Critique
3
Garrity warnings: Eric Diagle conducted a case study “To give or not to give” that's the question
on the Supreme Court landmark case Garrity vs. New Jersey (1967). Eric’s case study was very
detailed about inconsistent use of Garrity warnings by different law enforcement agencies
during the misconduct complaints investigation against the officers. Garrity vs. New Jersey
(1967) is the case specific about police officers during an internal affairs investigation and these
officers were compelled to give the statements regarding a ticket fixing incident. The statements
which were provided by the officers during an internal affairs investigation were used in criminal
proceedings against those officers and the officers were convicted and charged criminally in the
court. During the internal affairs investigations the officers were given threats of losing their jobs
the Supreme court held the protection of these officers under the fourteenth amendment
which protects due process rights and equal protection. The Supreme Court after the case
created Garrity warnings to further protect government employee’s rights under fifth and
fourteenth amendments. Garrity warnings provided protection to all the government
employees during their misconduct investigations against compelled statements under pressure
or threats of losing their jobs. A rule established under The Garrity warnings in reference to
internal affairs investigations where its employees have the responsibility to give a statement
during investigations to safeguard and secure their employment. Garrity warnings made it
unreasonable to pressurize an officer under a situation to make them give a statement due to
invoking their Fifth Amendment rights and later use the given statement against them in the
court and get them convicted. During the investigations the employer can apply Garrity
warnings. It means that the employers can give a clear warning to the employee to be honest
and truthful about the investigation questions asked reference the case and the officers’
misconduct and cooperate with the internal affairs investigations. “ During the course of this
Case Study Critique
4
questioning, even if you do disclose information which indicates that you may be guilty of
criminal conduct in this matter, neither your self-incriminating statements, nor the fruits
thereof, will be used against you in any criminal proceeding” (Garrity Warnings, n.d.). Garrity
warnings compel an employee to be truthful at the same time it gives employees an
opportunity to say that these statements cannot be used against them during the criminal
proceedings. During the investigation it's important to understand the difference between the
statement and routine reports.
Decision:
Every law enforcement agency has their policies and procedures about internal affairs
investigations... When there is a complaint against an officer for misconduct it is investigated
internally by the internal affairs detectives. In this case study Daigle discussed about the
employer’s priority and the responsibility to charge an employee criminally for their misconduct
or give them discipline for violating the department policy. Daigle recognized and discussed
how prosecutors are overreaching to the chiefs of police authorities and instead conducting
criminal investigations they encourage employers to terminate the employees to hinder the
legal proceedings in criminal cases. When agencies take this route it always delays the
administrative procedures and delays the conclusion and decision of policy and procedures
violations. This process helps in criminal proceedings and getting the charges against the
employees but does not help with the internal affairs investigations. For the law enforcement
agencies to decide what works best for them is that they can take against police misconduct in
their internal affairs investigations within the agency. Daigle suggests that the department's
internal investigation must not jeopardize the department's integrity as well as legal
proceedings. “Under the Garrity warnings, however, an employee has no right to lie during his
Case Study Critique
5
or her statement should he or she choose to provide a statement. In other words, if the
employee is provided Garrity warnings, and a compelled statement is obtained, the employee
could be subject to criminal charges if the employee perjured himself during the interview”
(n.d.). All the statements which are the result of internal affairs investigation must be used
internally for administrative procedures and policy violations and disciplines. According to
Daigle, if an officer is involved in a misconduct and commits a crime, the agency must quickly
complete an administrative procedure rather than delaying the prosecution.” On an operational
side- when a misconduct complaint is filed against an officer and Garrity warnings are issued to
that officer the investigative officer or the detective has to provide the warning that his or her
compelled responses cannot be used against him or her in a criminal proceeding and will only
be used for administrative purposes” (n.d.). Daigle suggested that in a situation where an officer
is involved in criminal activity he or she must be discharged from their duties before the legal
proceedings begin. During this discharge and getting any compelled statements these
statements must not be used against the officer in criminal proceedings.
This concluded Diagle study that the balance between the administrative investigation and
criminal investigation is imperative and it has to be maintained for the integrity and
transparency of the agency.
I agree with Daigle. It's very important for an agency to have the policy of maintaining the
balance between internal affairs investigation and criminal investigations.
Different agencies have different policies about their internal affairs investigations and the
decision about Garrity warnings depends on the situation and case on case basis. During a
Case Study Critique
6
criminal investigation against an officer he/she must be warned that any statement they will
provide can be used against them in the court of law during the criminal case proceedings.
Employees must be put on administrative leave during the internal investigations. By keeping
the officer away during the course of investigation helps in trust building between the
community and the agency and its integrity and the agency serves the purpose of providing
excellent services to the by keeping an officer away during criminal investigations. For the law
enforcement agencies it's important to build and sustain the trust and the relationship with the
community. This relationship and trust building helps the agencies in getting the support for the
community members.
Alternative solutions:
In different cases there is lack of consistency when it comes to the implication and
interpretation of Garrity warnings. There are examples of the cases where the court had to
order to redefine the use of Garrity warning during investigations. In the landmark case United
States vs. Indorato, the court considered the appeal of a Massachusetts police officer who was
convicted of theft. “On appeal, he argued that the statements he had given were coerced and
therefore in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, he argued that the statements by
the state police detective constituted a threat of dismissal, because departmental rules required
officers to "promptly obey any lawful order emanating from any superior officer," and that
violating this rule would lead to a trial board whereupon a finding of guilt the officer "may be
subject to dismissal or such disciplinary action as the Commissioner or Executive Officer may
direct."(U.S. V. Indorato, n.d.).
Case Study Critique
7
In the article “Between the rock and the Whirlpool” discusses how the first circuit court threw a
curve ball to Garrity warnings in United States vs. Indorato (1980) case. In this case there was
evidence of multiple threats which were given to the employee and the employee was given the
warning that he will lose his job. The first circuit court determined that no threats were given to
Lt. Indorato that he would lose his job therefore he was not compelled. “The defendant
concedes that she was not expressly threatened with termination if she failed to answer the
city’s questions. She contends, however, that the threat of disciplinary action and her subjective
belief that she would be discharged if she did not cooperate entitled her to the protections of
Garrity” (n.d.).
The supreme court case state of new Hampshire vs. Valerie Litvin (2002) which was one of the
most narrow ruling about Garrity warnings. In this case the court ruled that the statement
which was given by the dependent was not in violation of her fifth amendment right. Based on
the facts the defendant was provided a clear affirmation by the management to sign and there
is a city policy for termination insubordination. The court ordered since Litvin did not receive
any threats of losing the job yet she was not compelled and her fourteenth and Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights were not violated. The practice of labor laws is very unique
and organization centric. It is recommended for public administration to consider Garrity
warnings .The managers in public and private sector organizations must understand the goals
clearly and completely. Employees must be aware of the fact that if they will not be being
truthful in their statements they will be given discipline for the policy violation. Another warning
which can be provided to the employees is that if they will not cooperate with the investigations
they might get terminated. This will make the employee understand that refusing to answer the
reasonable investigative question can result in termination from the job.
Case Study Critique
8
During the investigation the detective or the investigator must always prefer to get a voluntary
statement and if they are planning to use the given statement in prosecution in the future a
clear and detailed warning must be provided to the employee that their statement can be used
in the court against them and it can be used to get them convicted and changed with the crime.
These are very important tools, framework and the legal guidelines for the employers to
maintain a balance between the administrative investigations and criminal investigation. This
framework is with the intention to provide a middle way to conduct administrative investigation
as well as keeping in mind that this investigation might end up in the court for prosecution open
for the prosecution. By giving priority to these legal guidelines the organization can plain the
best use of Garrity warnings to protect them. These are the best resources for the organizations
to protect their integrity while at the same time it guarantees employees' fifth and the
fourteenth amendments rights are not violated.
Case # 2
A law enforcement officer's job is not an easy task. During the course of their job police officers
carry a lot of stress and burden on inquiries and prosecution. The Law enforcement bill of rights
was created to protect law enforcement officers by providing them protection against
unreasonable investigation, inquiries and discipline while conducting their official duties.
Community members deserve respect and fair treatment from law enforcement officers. While
serving and protecting the community from the criminals and criminal activities law
enforcement officers have the right to protect them from the complaints of wrongdoing and not
Case Study Critique
9
upholding the law. There are two clauses in the constitution to protect and give the due process
to the citizens. These two clauses are the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth amendment. The
Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government and the fourteenth amendment applies to
the state government. Both amendments prohibit the government from depriving individuals
from life, liberty and property without due process. “The Constitution states only one command
twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment , ratified in
1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation
of all states”(Strauss, 2022) .
Police officers have the responsibility of protecting the community members and their duties
come from the legal authority granted by the government. Officers are bound by the law to
drive their duties within the framework of established laws, statutes and the constitution. The
law enforcement officer bill of rights ensures that all the investigations against officers are kept
confidential till the allegations are concluded and the disciplinary actions are according to the
law.
Case Study Critique: Officer Bill of Right
Law enforcement officers take oath to protect the citizens and their properties. It's a hard job to
do and it comes with tons of accountability and responsibility. We live in a technology and AI
world where the law enforcement officer's accountability standards have changed too. Where
the technology is helping in law enforcement work and making it easy for the officers to
apprehend the criminals, there is also constant scrutiny on officers. The reason for the demand
of more effective investigations during an office’s misconduct allegation is to improve the police
Case Study Critique
10
accountability. “Building the collaborative relationships necessary for community policing may
require overcoming decades of isolation, disenfranchisement, and suspicion. These in turn have
led in many communities to periodic civil unrest—while allowing serious crime and disorder
issues to remain unaddressed” (Law Enforcement Best Practices, n.d.).
This included the procedures for misconduct allegations and implicit bias in policing training
and civilian oversight to the law enforcement training policies and procedures. The goal is to
build public trust and effective, proper and thorough investigations against all misconduct
allegations. During the course of their duties law enforcement officers have to face two kinds of
investigation: one is administrative and other is criminal investigation. This determines the
significant difference between two types of investigations against officers and also precise
officers position during the investigation.
Facts:
When an officer is involved in an official misconduct and a formal complaint is launched against
that officer the investigations and assessment are done by the officer’s peers. Everyone has its
own perspective over the investigations and the statute. Some people think these investigations
are not fair and impartial. This statute can limit disciplinary actions against problematic officers
and it can protect them against the consequences for their misconduct. Officer’s bill of rights
gives law enforcement officers the same protection and right to due process under the fifth and
fourteenth constitution amendment like any other individual. Officers' bill of rights is included in
every state's constitutional rights and it's not a constitutional amendment. Twenty four states
have adopted and implemented the officer’s bill of rights. The final version of the bill was never
passed by the senate. ” Some states specify that the rights granted in a LEOBOR are
Case Study Critique
11
supplementary to rights granted by collective bargaining agreements. In states without these
provisions, the LEOBOR serves as the minimum standard for rights granted to officers, but
unions can bargain for additional rights and procedural protections for officers”(National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2022). Since different states have their different statutes for
the crimes they find problems with the bill and some states have their own statutes to protect
the officer bill of rights but didn't have the full bill implemented. The purpose of rights is to
ensure the officers get the same protection under the constitution like civilians. The Bill of rights
also ensures that the misconduct allegations investigation and interview is conducted during
officer’s duty hours. Since the officer bill of rights is not a constitutional right it was created due
to the demand of extensive accountability for police officers and effective investigations for
their misconduct and wrongdoing during their official duties. The peace officer bill of rights was
introduced by New York Representative Mario Biaggi in 1971 and the reason was to highlight
the importance of different agencies' internal affairs investigations conducted by the agencies
and the criminal investigations against the officers. When law enforcement officers unions
bargain the contracts agreements there are always conflicts between the negotiations and the
bargaining agreements.
Decision
The groundwork of the officer bill of rights started by two famous case laws Gardner vs,
Broderick and Garrity] vs. New Jersey. The investigations conducted during these cases made it
easy to understand the difference between the administrative and criminal investigations
against law enforcement officers. This bill clearly addresses the circumstances and the facts
when determined from a law enforcement perspective during the time they were performing
their duties when the allegation occurred. This bill also ensures that the officers get the full
Case Study Critique
12
allegation details against them. The parallel inquiries cannot be initiated without the officer's
knowledge.” The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time
when the public law enforcement officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the
public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise” (911MEDIA,
n.d.).The officer bill of rights protects the officer’s rights during the process of investigation and
disciplinary actions like discipline, suspension or dismissal even though the officer is under
interrogation for the alleged complaint against them. According to the bill it is the law
enforcement officer’s obligation to report any act, misconduct or incident which is a serious
violation of state or federal law. During the official duties these conducts can be related to any
fraudulent activities, serious abuse of power and substantial conflict of interest done during the
conduct of their official duties. Officers must be aware and educated about their Fifth
Amendment rights during investigations. Law enforcement officers must know that under the
constitution they have the same rights of protection like everyone. There must be compassion
from both citizens and the officer’s side because an offender is an offender it doesn't mean if it's
a citizen or an officer they both enjoy the same rights per constitution. Peace officer bill of rights
is a protection against unprofessional officers and at the same time it gives an officer to clarify
and protect them against the misconduct allegations and complaints.
Alternative Solutions
Everyone in the community who is an employee in the public and private sector has the right to
protect themselves against any allegation so the law enforcement officer bill of rights is a
reasonable option for police officers to protect themselves against complaints. To protect and
provide uniformed procedures and policies against officer's misconduct allegations all the states
Case Study Critique
13
must adopt the peace officer bill of rights. This bill will provide a balance to our public
administration and justice system. To make it more effective and protect the peace officers
across the nation and give them the same rights against misconduct allegations, the federal
government must pass the peace officer’s bill of rights to make it mandatory for all the states to
follow the bill and implement it to all the agencies. Police officers especially in the agencies
which hire young citizen’s majority of these young officers are not aware of their rights during
internal affairs investigations. It's the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to provide
officers training to educate them about their rights and how they can protect themselves
against unreasonable investigation during misconduct allegations. These agencies must add to
their academy curriculum and the training block about law enforcement officers' bill of rights
and how officers can use their fourteenth and Fifth Amendment rights and protection according
to the constitution. The Legal team in the agencies must provide internal education and training
and make it mandatory for all the officers to attend these training sessions. When law
enforcement officers are well educated about their rights they are more effective as compared
to an officer who doesn't know his or her legal and constitutional rights. Officers must know that
they are protected and they have the same rights like any other citizen. The Peace officer bill of
rights protects officers from the fear of losing their job if they don’t cooperate with the
investigations and don't answer the questions. Officers hold high standards and the community
members look up to the officers who serve their communities thus these officers must be
professional and cooperative with the internal affairs investigations and at the same time they
must be aware of their Miranda rights. Police officers including all other first responders have a
hard job to do. There must be a unified system and law to protect the officers across the nations
and agencies must collaborate to come up with common policies and procedures to protect
Case Study Critique
14
their officers from unreasonable investigations and prosecutions. Times are very hard for the
first responders especially law enforcement officers and when they know about their rights and
constitutional protections it gives them more confidence and motivation.
The bible emphasizes on obeying the laws and respecting the authorities. Romans 13 deals with
submission to government authorities. “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have
been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling
against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves”
(Romans 13 NIV - - Bible Gateway, 2011).
References:
Garrity Warnings. (n.d.). Garrity Rights. http://www.garrityrights.org/garrity-warnings.html
Case Study Critique
15
(n.d.). Https://Daiglelawgroup.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2016/10/Garrity-To-Give-Or-Not-
ToGive-That-Is-The-Question.pdf.
U.S. v. Indorato. (n.d.). Garrity Rights. http://www.garrityrights.org/us-v-indorato.html
(n.d.). Https://Www.courts.nh.gov/Sites/G/Files/Ehbemt471/Files/Documents/
202208/2002033litvin.pdf.
Strauss, P. (2022). Due Process. Legal Information Institute; Cornell Law School.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
Law Enforcement Best Practices. (n.d.).
https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-w0875-pub.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2022, June 6). Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights.
Www.ncsl.org. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/law-enforcement-officer-bill-
ofrights
911MEDIA. (n.d.). Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Peace Officers Research Association of California.
https://porac.org/members/peace-officer-bill-of-rights/
Romans 13 NIV - - Bible Gateway. (2011). Www.biblegateway.com.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NI
