cooperate with an investigation to be terminated those officers were to choose between giving a statement or  there you're asking us to focus on just a single word possible in those security warnings where the substance of the gear and warnings is we were told that we can't answer these questions you're basically saying that in order for that determination to prompt the terminations under frederick to be satisfied you have to see the underlying statements you would be go to see order that allows the state to see the underlying statements as part of the evidence rehearing that would be the most remote decision i believe because in each case that i you not find out what you want to know simply by talking to officer boehland there would be one situation i believe that would be true defendants in this manner they would compel them because these options were told by and security officer that they had to be in the state they were compelling because they were being given as a condition of employment and they were compelled because the officers had no choice but to abide by this is a supreme court case that clearly recognizes the privileges against self incrimination is not to be watered down because of the classification of a person vote just because it's a police office not that he or she should have a lesser right under the to do so in dread of losing their jobs if they fail to provide an answer to the questions posed to them my term of theirs vestigal the lower court at the trial level recognized very clearly  statement internal affairs investigation in the first place i think the other thing that is very relevant shortly from the city of yours perspective is that there's a very strong public policy are to be made against providing these kinds of statements  frankly is to be able to do a thorough and complete investigation of any allegation of misconduct along the way by its officers when when the lead and in order to be able to do such an investigation and maintain the public would be incriminating in some way and that incentive is the carry warnings that have been provided to each of those officers and provided to this work who are these are we really talking about now because state is you know the real crucial issue were under a threat over threat of losing their job if they did not provide this thing there that really you are saying the public policy is the confidentiality of those statements in furtherance of an internal home the analogy for these scaredy protections as miranda has been watered down fairly consistently over the years what's the argument that garrity should still hearing but limited to the circumstances surrounding the giving of the statements and exclude the statements from consideration does freely and voluntarily that is not the case that we could either for the purpose of the hear that second was to deal with that second interrogation basically for the reserves yes but yes just what is the purpose of ok the first  state has the opportunity to talk to sergeant bowe they can say ask him what are her what do you feel what should we investigate should we go down as they are should we go down there the best find the officer statement itself is it is clearer that we've shown here or you were entitle to under frederick is the context in which those carry warnings were developed and executed i don't think you get the statements as a part of that process well i would