Document: 392 U.S. 273 88 S.Ct. 1913 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 Robert Vincent GARDNER, Appellant,v.Vincent L. BRODERICK, as Police Commissioner of the City New York, et al. No. 635. Argued April 30, 1968. Decided June 10, Ronald Podolsky, York City, for appellant. J. Lee Rankin, appellees. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellant brought this action in Supreme Court State seeking reinstatement a patrolman and back pay. He claimed he was unlawfully dismissed because refused to waive his privilege against self-incrimination. In August 1965, pursuant subpoena, appellant appeared before County grand jury which investigating alleged bribery corruption police officers connection with unlawful gambling operations. advised that proposed examine him concerning performance official duties. self-incrimination,1 but asked sign 'waiver immunity' after being told would be fired if did not sign.2 Following refusal, given an administrative hearing discharged solely § 1123 Charter.3 2 The petition reinstatement, 27 A.D.2d 800, 279 N.Y.S.2d 150 (1967), Appeals affirmed. N.Y.2d 227, 282 487, 229 N.E.2d 184 (1967). We noted probable jurisdiction. 390 918, 848, 19 978 (1968). 3 Our decisions establish beyond dispute breadth refuse respond questions when result may self-incriminatory need fully implement its guaranty. See Spevack v. Klein, 385 511, 87 625, 17 574 (1967); Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 585—586, 12 195, 206—207, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892); Albertson SACB, 382 70, 80, 86 194, 199, 15 165 (1965). is applicable state well federal proceedings. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 653 (1964); Murphy Waterfront Commission, 52, 1594, 678 (1964). waived appropriate circumstances waiver knowingly voluntarily made. Answers compelled regardless there immunity from use testimony or fruits criminal prosecution person testifying. supra, at 206—207; 79, 1609. 4 question presented present case whether policeman who refuses protections gives office refusal. 5 About year half petitioner refusal immunity, we decided Garrity Jersey, 493, 616, 562 case, held had been testify by threat otherwise removed office, gave could used subsequent prosecution. signed no statute circumstances. holding summarized following statement (at 500, 620): 6 'We now hold protection individual under Fourteenth Amendment coerced statements prohibits proceedings obtained removal it extends all, they are policemen other members our body politic.' 7 considered control case. It true related attempted testimony. involve precise here: namely, discharge officer refusing right Constitution guarantees him. also distinguished post-Garrity decision supra. Spevack, ruled lawyer disbarred disciplinary proceeding on ground tend incriminate concluded does different considerations apply public such policeman. A lawyer, stated, although licensed employee. This distinction urged upon us. argued constitutionally confronted Hobson's choice between self-incrimination forfeiting means livelihood, same principle should protect Unlike directly, immediately, entirely responsible city employer. owes entire loyalty it. has 'client' principal. trustee interest, bearing burden great total responsibility directly client, either one.4 8 agree these factors differentiate situations. If appellant, policeman, answer specifically, narrowly relating duties,5 without required respect answers thereof himself. have bar dismissal. 9 facts however, do issue. Here, summoned investigation conduct. failure relevant about duties, constitutional right. relinquish Charter both expressly provided so, testify, dismissal job. entitled despite privilege. 10 speculate whether, executed circumstances, effect nullify waiver. execute document purporting rights permit himself basis Petitioner assumed—and certainly assume—that idle act legal effect. any event, mandate tolerate attempt, ultimate effectiveness, coerce confers penalty loss employment. clear petitioner's demanded part so might prosecute him, purpose securing accounting trust. latter only purpose, reason seek compel immunity. 11 Proper regard history meaning self-incrimination,6 States (1964), Court,7 dictate conclusion provision cannot stand. Accordingly, judgment reversed. Reversed. 13 BLACK concurs result. Assistant District Attorney said appellant: 'You understand * United States, one can himself, right, absolute him?' told: officer, includes called Grand Jury conduct duties wishes retain office?' phrased follows: 'I hereby all benefits, privileges, I obtain indictment, prosecution, punishment account of, regarding matter, transaction things, my property, government affairs county included within territorial limits, nomination, election, appointment county, matters, transactions things produce evidence documentary otherwise, (blank) conducted Jury.' That section provides: 'If councilman employee shall, lawful notice process, wilfully fail appear court judge, legislative committee, board authorized inquiry, having shall matter relation term tenure employment terminate vacant, eligible election agency.' Section Article 'No witness providing, who, matters jury, virtue disqualified period five years authority forfeit suit attorney-general.' Cf. 519—520, 630—631 (concurring judgment). separate 630—631, referred, limited situations kind. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 458—466, 1602, 1619—1624, 16 694 (1966), authorities cited therein. See, e.g., Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106 (1965);

Category: 0