Decided June 10, 1968
The facts of this case occurred before Garrity, but the case was decided after Garrity.
Gardner was a police officer in New York, who was being investigated by a grand jury for bribery, corruption, and illegal gambling. He was advised of his right against self incrimination, but asked to sign a waiver of that right. He refused.
At the time, New York had a policy in their charter which said that any city employee would be fired if they pled the fifth to work-related questions in court. Gardner was fired for his refusal to waive his rights, and he sued the city for reinstatement and back pay. He lost, but he appealed.
The US Supreme Court held that if Gardner could have legally been fired if he had refused to answer questions about the discharge of his duties without being asked to waive his rights. But that's not what happened; Gardner wasn't fired for not telling his boss what he did, Gardner was fired for not waiving his rights in a pending criminal prosecution. The lower courts' decision was reversed.
And so now, whenever we go to IA, we are informed that we will be fired if we refuse to answer questions, but that our answers can not be used against us in a criminal case- they're just used to determine what our future employment status will be.
Showing posts with label Garrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Garrity. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 6, 1996
Monday, July 1, 1996
US Supreme Court Garrity v. New Jersey 13
Decided January 16, 1967
Court case number 13. :) Apparently, the case numbering scheme has gotten a lot more complex since the 60's.
Garrity was a cop, and he was one of several who were being investigated by the New Jersey Attorney General for fixing tickets. Each of the cops involved was interrogated, and prior to their interrogation each of them were advised of the following: (1) that anything he said might be used against him in any state criminal proceeding; (2) that he had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; but (3) that if he refused to answer he would be subject to removal from office.
In order to keep their jobs, they waived their rights. They made incriminating statements, which were later admitted in court over their objections, and they were convicted. They appealed their convictions.
The US Supreme Court held that making it a condition of employment for a public servant that they waive a constitutional right is coercive, and that therefore the waiver of the right is not free and voluntary. Statements obtained this way may not be used in a criminal proceeding, and the decision of the lower courts was reversed.
Court case number 13. :) Apparently, the case numbering scheme has gotten a lot more complex since the 60's.
Garrity was a cop, and he was one of several who were being investigated by the New Jersey Attorney General for fixing tickets. Each of the cops involved was interrogated, and prior to their interrogation each of them were advised of the following: (1) that anything he said might be used against him in any state criminal proceeding; (2) that he had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; but (3) that if he refused to answer he would be subject to removal from office.
In order to keep their jobs, they waived their rights. They made incriminating statements, which were later admitted in court over their objections, and they were convicted. They appealed their convictions.
The US Supreme Court held that making it a condition of employment for a public servant that they waive a constitutional right is coercive, and that therefore the waiver of the right is not free and voluntary. Statements obtained this way may not be used in a criminal proceeding, and the decision of the lower courts was reversed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)