1

Case Study Critique 1

MacKenzie Effler

Liberty University

Human Resource Management CJUS-530

Larry D. Anthony, Ph.D.

April 11, 2020

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 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 2

Abstract

The understanding of Garrity warnings varies tremendously depending on the criminal

justice organization. nuIn Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S Supreme Court established Garrity

rights to protect government employees that are compelled to provide statements in

administrative investigations. This set of protections comes from Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment of the U.S Constitution, which gives citizens the right to not self-incriminate.

Before a police officer is compelled to provide a statement, they need to be given a Garrity

warning. It is important to understand that Garrity does not protect employees under all

m
er as
circumstances. In McKinley v. City of Mansfield, the courts clarified that an individual can be

co
eH w
prosecuted if they knowingly provide a false statement. By having knowledge on these cases

o.
rs e
departments can protect its police officers’ rights and make sure that Garrity rights are used
ou urc
properly.
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 3

Case Study Critique 1

Daigle (2012) raises concerns about the inconsistency and lack of understanding of

Garrity warnings within criminal justice organizations. While many law enforcement

organizations are aware of Garrity protections, Daigle believes that the understanding of them

varies drastically from organization to organization. In Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S Supreme

Court established Garrity rights. While in McKinley v. City of Mansfield, the U.S Court of

Appeals provided clarity on the protections granted by Garrity. By understanding these to case

criminal justice organizations can properly give Garrity warnings and not overextend Garrity

m
er as
rights (Daigle, 2012).

co
eH w
o.
Facts
rs e
ou urc
Garrity v. New Jersey
o

The U.S Supreme Court case Garrity v. New Jersey, established Garrity rights for police
aC s
vi y re

officers and other government employees. This particular case was the result of an administrative

investigation conducted by the state New Jersey. When questioned by the New Jersey
ed d
ar stu

investigators, the police officers being questioned were given two important warnings. The first

warning included their right to not self-incriminate and that the statements could be used in
is

criminal proceedings. The second warning the officers were given was that failure to provide a
Th

statement would result in termination. This directly violates rights granted to citizens in the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments (Garrity v. New Jersey, 1967). The U.S Supreme Court created a set
sh

of rules meant to protect employees from facing criminal actions from compelled statements

(Daigle, 2012).

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 4

When a police officer needs to provide a statement for an administrative investigation,

they should be given a Garrity warning. The warning provides expectations for the officer during

the interview and informs them that any of the provided statements will not be used in criminal

proceedings. An organization is not allowed to discipline an officer for not complying with an

investigation until they are told the repercussions that they may face for not answering any

questions. It is important to understand that Garrity rights do not protect the officer if the

statement is given freely. Additionally, Garrity rights do not extend to criminal investigations.

That would be extending them beyond their intended scope (Daigle, 2012).

m
er as
McKinley v. City of Mansfield

co
eH w
o.
In McKinley v. City of Mansfield, the U.S Court of Appeals provides further clarification
rs e
ou urc
on the protections offered by Garrity. This case was the result of a police officer facing charges

after providing false information during administrative investigation. The officer was
o
aC s

interviewed multiple times, each with Garrity warnings, and confessed to knowingly providing a
vi y re

false statement. The information gathered within the administrative investigation, including the

statements, were used to bring charges against the officer (McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 2005).
ed d
ar stu

According to Daigle, the court ruled that “Garrity, however, does not preclude the use of

compelled statements in the prosecution for false statements or obstruction of official business”
is

(2012). Yet, the court decided that only the false statement could be used to pursue criminal
Th

actions. The other interviews were still protected by Garrity rights (Daigle, 2012).
sh

Decision

The U.S Supreme Court ruled that any statements that were compelled from a police

officer during an administrative investigation cannot be used in criminal proceedings. The

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 5

Garrity rights that are provided to police officers and other public employees are derived from

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (Garrity v. New Jersey,

1967). The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury [...] nor shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law” (Amdt5.4.1, n.d.). The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that

states do not infringe the rights granted to citizens within the Bill of Rights (Amdt5.4.1, n.d.). In

Garrity v. New Jersey, the court concluded that an officer should not have to make the decision

m
er as
between self-incrimination or job loss. It is important to note that Garrity rights are limited. They

co
eH w
do not extend to route reports or criminal investigations (Daigle, 2012).

o.
rs e Alternative Solutions
ou urc
Garrity rights do not offer the employee that is being compelled in an administrative
o
aC s

investigation transactional immunity. Transactional immunity is when the police officer is fully
vi y re

immune from criminal prosecution for the offense being investigated. This was the norm until

Kastigar v. United States, in which the U.S Supreme Court overruled the prior president. They
ed d
ar stu

decided that the immunity granted by Garrity only extends to statements and derivative evidence.

Transactional immunity goes far beyond the intended scope of Garrity. Being compelled to
is

provide a statement by interviewers does not protect the subject from criminal proceedings if
Th

non-derivative evidence exists (Kastigar v. United States, 1972).

sh

Conclusion

In Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S Supreme Court established Garrity rights to protect

government employees that are compelled to provide statements in administrative investigations.

This study source was downloaded by 100000806092191 from CourseHero.com on 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 6

These rights are derived directly from the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments (Garrity v. New

Jersey, 1967). Before a police officer is compelled to provide a statement, they need to be given

a Garrity warning. It is important to understand that Garrity does not protect employees under all

circumstances. For example, if the statement is giving willingly, it is not protected under Garrity

(Daigle, 2012). In McKinley v. City of Mansfield, the courts clarified that an individual can be

prosecuted if they knowingly provide a false statement (McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 2005). By

understanding Garrity rights police departments can ensure they do not compromise their police

officers’ rights whilst not overextending Garrity protections.

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 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
 7

References

Amdt5.4.1 Right to Due Process: Overview. (n.d.). Constitution Annotated; The Library of

Congress.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious

%20difference%20between

Daigle, E. (2012). Garrity warnings: To give or not to give, that is the question. The Police Chief,

79, 12-13. http://www.reid.com/pdfs/policechiefmagArticle.pdf

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)

m
er as
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)

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

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 06-09-2021 01:33:42 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/95329010/Case-Study-Critique-Stress-and-Conflicts-Assignment-CJUS-530docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)