Source: http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/garrity-3-of-6.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:41:19+00:00

Document:
The right of government employees against self-incrimination requires compulsion as a triggering mechanism for immunity against the use/derivative use of their statements in a criminal prosecution.i As with any statement implicating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, statements must also be incriminating and testimonial.
After the three statements, Deputy Harrison was notified that a pre-disciplinary conference would take place. “At this conference, Plaintiff was given a form explaining his Garrity rights but was informed that no statements were being compelled—he need not say anything.” Harrison’s attorney informed him that since no statements were being compelled, Garrity immunity did not exist. Deputy Harrison exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege and remained silent. Following the conference, Deputy Harrison was suspended without pay. A second conference was held at which time Deputy Harrison again remained silent due to a lack of Garrity protection. Although the criminal investigation concluded with no criminal charges brought against Harrison, he was terminated.
On appeal, Deputy Harrison claimed that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated by the department’s refusal to provide Garrity protection at every stage of the administrative process. In its review of the cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded, “Garrity only prohibits the compulsion of testimony that has not been immunized… In other words, the employee may not be both compelled to testify (or make a statement) and be required to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege…. An ‘employee’s rights are imperiled only by the combined risks of both compelling the employee to answer incriminating questions and compelling the employee to waive immunity from the use of those answers,’” in a criminal prosecution. “The result of these prohibitions is that a public employee cannot be terminated solely for the exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege.” Conversely, a public employee’s statement, compelled under the threat of the loss of their job, cannot be used against that employee in a subsequent criminal trial.
A disciplinary action, short of termination may not be viewed as coercion to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.ii In the Chan case, an officer won a judgment against the Chicago Police Department after he was transferred from a prestigious assignment following his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury based upon his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to his transfer Officer Chan was assigned to the Intelligence Division of the Chicago Police Department and was detailed to a multi-jurisdictional task force on terrorists. In that assignment, Officer Chan had a take-home car and received significant overtime pay. He lost these two benefits after his transfer.
In overturning the judgment for Officer Chan the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit concluded that the “jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and this court also makes clear that not every consequence of invoking the Fifth Amendment is considered sufficiently severe to amount to coercion to waive the right. Rather, the effect must be sufficiently severe to be ‘capable of forcing the self-incrimination which the amendment forbids’ (cite omitted).” The court noted that Chan only lost the two incidental benefits, overtime and take-home car that went with his previous position and concluded that Deputy Superintendent Wodnicki was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his transfer of Chan.
“If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity v. New Jersey, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.” Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968).
After reviewing a transcript of Hill’s last interview, the court concluded that it was made clear that the matter was administrative. As a result, the court dismissed the lawsuit.
When does the protection under the Garrity case apply? Some courts have found that immunity under Garrity is self-executing any time an officer is asked to answer questions that may be incriminating.v Yet the determination as to whether immunity attaches may very well depend on who is asking the questions.vi In Benjamin v. Montgomery, two officers were terminated following their refusal to testify in court after being subpoenaed by the defendants in a case involving the shooting of a police officer. Upon being called to the witness stand, the two officers refused to testify concerning their investigation, citing their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Following this refusal, the mayor ordered the officers to return to court and “divulge all information relevant to the case.” The officers were subsequently recalled to the stand at which time they agreed to testify, but only because the mayor had ordered them to do so. The court refused to take the officers’ testimony.
In the Benjamin case, the officers were being questioned by defense counsel not by public authorities conducting an internal investigation. Following their termination for refusing to testify, the officers filed suit alleging a deprivation of rights. The city of Memphis defended the suit arguing that the officers had no right to refuse to testify because the officers would have automatically obtained immunity since they were in the same situation as the officer in Erwin. The United States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit rejected the City’s argument concluding that agreement with the city’s position would shift the ability to grant immunity to defendants anytime they called a police officer as a witness. Thus, the first time the two officers were called to testify, they were not subjects of an investigation, they had not been directed to answer by a police authority, and therefore their answers could have been used against them in a criminal proceeding. As a result, the officers had a privilege to refuse to give testimony. The court went on to hold that once the “mayor ordered the officers to testify, the situation changed.” The court concluded that the officers were terminated “solely because they conditioned their testimony on retention of their Fifth Amendment privilege” in violation of their Constitutional rights.
i See e.g., Harrison v. Wille, 132 F.3d 679 (11th Cir. 1998).
ii See Chan v. Wodnicki, 123 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 1997); cert. denied 522 U.S. 1117 (1998).
iii See, E.G., Hill v. Johnson, 160 F. 3d 469 ( 8th Cir. 1998).
iv See Also, Jones v. Franklin County Sheriff, 555 N.E. 2d 940 (Ohio 1990) (Deputy’s discharge upheld after she refused to answer questions during internal investigation); Martinez v. Safir, 251 A.D. 2d 62 (S.Ct. N.Y. 1998).
v See, Hester v. City of Midgeville, 777 F. 2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985).
vi See, Benjamin v. Montgomery, 785 F.2d 959 (11th Cir. 1986).
vii Erwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668 (11th Cir. 1985).
Officer Involved Shooting: This course is intended for those investigators who are specifically assigned to the criminal investigation of officer involved shootings and in-custody deaths.
Defending Law Enforcement Litigation: Held at the Western States Training Conference, Instruction is directed towards all administrators, risk managers, attorneys and goverment officials who represent law enforcement in litigation.
Legal Aspects of Use of Force: The purpose of this program is to prepare officers, supervisors, investigators and prosecutors in the proper response and investigation of serious use of force incidents and officer-involved shootings.
Prevention of Police Misconduct: This program focuses on the causes and impact of misconduct in a law enforcement agency, and corruption and strategies to prevent misconduct from invading a police agency, including early intervention systems.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.