Once Immunized, Officer Must Tell the Truth (Garrity: Pt 6 of 6) Two recent cases from the United States Supreme Court make it clear that once a public employee is granted immunity by compelling the employee to respond to questions in an administrative interview, the employee must tell the truth or face exposure to further discipline or criminal charges.i LaChance v. Erickson involved the questioning of federal employees.  In each of the cases consolidated in this appeal, the employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their alleged misconduct.  The employees were subsequently disciplined for the underlying charges and [...]

Are Off-Duty Incidents within the Scope of Garrity? (Garrity: Pt 5 of 6) In accordance with the ruling in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, a police officer may be compelled to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties as long as he or she has not been required to waive his or her privilege against self-incrimination. This raises the question as to how a department may deal with off-duty conduct within the context of official duties. In Duran v. Safir,i the federal district court reviewed the dismissal of a New York City police officer who had been terminated [...]

Civilian Review Boards and Garrity (Garrity: Pt 4 of 6) As civilian oversight of police has become more common-place, the issue has arisen as to whether a civilian review board can compel statements from officers.   The Court of Appeals of Colorado, ruled recently that a civilian review board could not compel an officer’s statement regarding the use of excessive force.i Denver v. Powell involved two use of force incidents.  In the first, the officer was accused of pushing a drunk-driving suspect’s head into a wall.  In the second, the officer had fatally shot a suspect.  In both cases, the department and the [...]

Compulsion as the Triggering Mechanism (Garrity: Pt 3 of 6) Employees have Rights against Compelled, Incriminating Statements but No Right to Garrity Immunity. The right of government employees against self-incrimination requires compulsion as a triggering mechanism for immunity against the use/derivative use of their statements in a criminal prosecution.i As with any statement implicating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, statements must also be incriminating and testimonial. In Harrison, the plaintiff, a deputy who had been terminated sued the county sheriff’s department from which he had been fired.  Deputy Michael Harrison had become the subject of an investigation into property that had been [...]

Immunity Granted Under Garrity (Garrity: Pt 2 of 6) Most grants of immunity occur under the jurisdiction of a court in accordance with a statute. See E.g. 18 U.S.C. 6002.  One type of immunity that developed in the context of investigations of public and government employees is that is commonly referred to in the law enforcement setting as a “Garrity” interview.  “Garrity” interviews and “Garrity”warnings derive their label from a United States Supreme Court decision, Garrity v. New Jersey.i The Garrity case involved officers who were questioned regarding a ticket-fixing scheme.  The officers were informed that their answers could be used against them in a criminal case [...]