CASE STUDY CRITIQUE #1

Case Study Critique #1

m
Robert Gleason

er as
co
Liberty University

eH w
CJUS 530

o.
rs e Dr. B. Lafond
ou urc
6/2/2021
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 08:57:06 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96478195/Case-Study-Critique-1docx/
 CASE STUDY CRITIQUE #1

Abstract

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides protection for all citizens from being
forced to give information to the police, or any other governmental entity, that would be harmful to the
person during a criminal proceeding. Public employees, to include police officers, are also provided this
right, even though they are part of the government, they should not be compelled to be a witness
against himself/herself. This poses a problem for government entities, like police departments, that are
entrusted by the stakeholders of a community to be able to deal with members who have violated a
departmental policy or statutory law. In Garrity v. New Jersey (1967), the Supreme Court created a set of
rules for employees of the government who are compelled by their employer to be truthful or face
disciplinary actions. This critique will review the article “Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is
the Question,” by Eric Daigle (2012), and examine application of the warning as it relates to the
mentioned case law.

m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 08:57:06 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96478195/Case-Study-Critique-1docx/
 CASE STUDY CRITIQUE #1

Introduction

Police Departments are given a powerful responsibility to uphold the law, maintain order, and
protect the lives of the people who they are sworn to protect. The leadership within the department are
held accountable for the actions taken by the members of the department by the citizens they protect to
ensure the officers are performing their jobs in a moral, legal, and ethical manner.

Police officers are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so, and a vast majority of the men and women
who put on the badge and uniform, do so with honor and integrity. Officers are human which means
mistakes are made, intentionally or unintentionally, that lead to a potential violations of policy or
criminal law. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides protection for all citizens
from being forced to give information to the police, or any other governmental entity, that would be
harmful to the person during a criminal proceeding. Though employed by the government, public
employees have the right of not being compelled to be a witness against himself/herself. The 1967

m
Supreme Court Case Garrity v. New Jersey, set up the basic rules for compelling statements by

er as
government employees.

co
eH w
This critique will review the article “Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question,” by
Eric Daigle (2012), which examines the confusion seen in departments regarding the application of

o.
rs e
Garrity Warnings, and attempts to answer the question of what is more important, the criminal case and
ou urc
prosecution of an officer, or the administrative discipline of the employee (Daigle, 2012).

Facts
o

In 1967, the Supreme Court case of Garrity v. New Jersey, created rules regarding compelled
aC s

statements made by police officers to their employing department. The court ruled that an officer must
vi y re

be given the opportunity to invoke his/her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when
questioned in an internal/administrative investigation (Daigle, 2012). The court viewed a statement
made by a governmental employee, to include a police officer, is not voluntary when there is threat of
being fired, and also viewed it not acceptable for an employer to put an officer in a position where they
ed d

have to make a choice of self-incrimination or being fired (Daigle, 2012).

ar stu

This is when Garrity should be applied. When the internal investigation is initiated, the violating officer is
interviewed, which depending on the circumstance, may force the officer to make a choice between his
rights and losing his/her job. In these cases, the officer must be ordered, to comply with the
is

investigation and make a truthful statement regarding their actions, or face the disciplinary actions
Th

(Daigle, 2012). The truthful statements, and any other evidence acquired from the statement, cannot be
used against the officer in any criminal court action.

Garrity does not mean employees are able to lie to investigators. In the United States Court of Appeals,
sh

Sixth District, case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield (2005), the court ruled that since the initial
statements that McKinley, a police officer being investigated for improper use of police scanners, made
during his first interview were false, Garrity did not apply, and ruled his statements could be used against
him (Daigle, 2012). The court also ruled that in a second interview, McKinley, who was advised he was
still being interviewed under the Warning of Garrity, made truthful statements to investigators which
met the standard of Garrity and could not be used against McKinley (Daigle, 2012).

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 08:57:06 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96478195/Case-Study-Critique-1docx/
 CASE STUDY CRITIQUE #1

Decision

Daigle (2012) attempts to answer his initial question on which is more important to a police agency the
criminal case and prosecution of an officer, or the administrative discipline of the employee. Daigle
(2012) concludes that though it is important for criminal acts to be prosecuted in a court of law, it is
more important for the agency to administer discipline to the offending officer, which keeps the integrity
of the agency intact with the community. Daigle (2012) argues police agencies have an obligation to the
community to be transparent and rid the agency of members who do not honor profession. Daigle
(2012) also argues that in certain cases, terminating the employee before any conviction allows the
department to be seen as not relying on the conviction in order to terminate the employee.

Alternative Solution

m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d

Daigle, E. (2012). Garrity warnings: To give or not to give, that is the question, Chief’s Counsel, The Police
Chief 79, 12–13.
ar stu

McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005)

is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 08:57:06 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96478195/Case-Study-Critique-1docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)