WARNING: THE CASE INTERPRETATIONS ARE MY OWN AND OTHERS MAY DIFFER IN THEIR OPINIONS. BE SURE TO CONTACT YOUR OWN COUNSEL BEFORE RELYING ON ANY OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS.
Case Name: GARRITY ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY
Case Citation: (1966) 385 U.S. 493
Quick Holding:
Threats of removal from public office to induce one to forgo the privilege of self-incrimination renders the subsequent statement involuntary and therefore inadmissible in a state criminal proceeding. It constitutes coercion and the decision to “waive” is made under duress.
The Story:
This concerns an investigation into ticket fixing in certain the boroughs of Bellmawr and Barrington in New Jersey. Garrity was Bellmawr’s chief of police. Four officers and a court clerk were engaged in falsifying municipal court records, altered traffic tickets, and diverting money produced from bail and fines to unauthorized purposes.
The Attorney General of the State of New Jersey conducted the investigation by calling in officer in and advising him that he had the privilege to refuse to answer any question that would tend to incriminate him, but if he refused to answer he would be subject to removal from office. The officers answered the questions and their answers were used against them in criminal prosecutions against them over their objections. The officers were convicted.
The Issues and Holdings:
1. Does the choice of waiving or termination of employment vitiate a confession? Yes, said the Supreme Court. “Coercion that vitiates a confession … can be “mental as well as physical” – “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.” (citations) “Subtle pressures … may be as telling as coarse and vulgar ones. The question is whether the accused was deprived of his “free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” (citations) “When the choice is “between the rock and the whirlpool,” duress is inherent in deciding to “waive” one of the other.” “We conclude that policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights.”
NOTE: There was a dissent which took the position that there was no coercion because the interrogations were gently done in a civilized manner and there is not fault in merely advising an officer of the consequences of failing to cooperate. “Duty required them to answer. Privilege permitted them to refuse to answer.” They may have a constitutional right to refuse to answer, but they do not have a constitutional right to remain police officers.
What It Means to You:
When a police officer is ordered to answer questions upon pain of losing his or her employment as an officer, the statements are coerced and cannot be used against the speaking officer in a criminal trial against the officer. Note that nothing prevents compelled statements from being used against any other persons and the employer is not prohibited from using the statements against the speaker in an administrative hearing resulting in the officer’s discipline or termination.
Subsequent Treatment:
This is a leading case that has been cited hundreds of times. As to the principles above it has been upheld and is the current state of the law. (May, 2013)
