Abstract
Daigle (2012) suggests that the rampant misuse and misunderstanding of the Garrity warning is something that has a profound effect on the administrative and managerial part of law enforcement. Law enforcement has to have a way to elicit responses from employees to determine employees’ willingness and ability to do their jobs; this should be entirely separate from the criminal prosecution that can occur as a result of criminal misconduct (Daigle, 2012). Administrative and internal affairs professionals must be able to appropriately understand how and when to use the statements given to them by personnel. When an officer issues a statement under Garrity protection, that statement cannot be compelled by or used by prosecutors in any way, regardless of how prosecutors come by this statement. The purpose of this discussion, then, will be to investigate the various issues surrounding Garrity protection, and to examine the argument of the case study: that a Garrity warning is enough to compel a statement if there is a potential criminal investigation at hand.
Facts
This particular case study deals with a very peculiar part of the law: the question of how to evoke the appropriate level of scrutiny for law enforcement personnel. Of course, it is a difficult question: the idea that some form of administrative accountability must exist in the employment sector of law enforcement is contrasted with the idea that law enforcement individuals should not be forced to incriminate themselves in any kind of criminal manner (International Union of Police Associations. 2016). This is undoubtedly a difficult case, as it asks the judiciary to balance two very real and tangible needs in American law enforcement (International Union of Police Associations, 2016).
The Garrity principle, then, suggests that internal affairs processing should be able to elicit a truthful response from an employee for the purposes of internal processing only. This truthful response or statement cannot, then, be used in any kind of prosecution against an individual in court. The purpose of this legal standard is to allow a law enforcement center to function appropriately as a place of employment. It is also functioning to ensure that law enforcement personnel are also protected against infringement on their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination (Daigle, 2012). Most interpretations of these rules—including legal interpretations—liken them to the Miranda warnings that all law enforcement officials are required to give people that are put under arrest (Daigle, 2012). The arguable purpose of these rules is to determine an officer’s ability to perform his or her duties appropriately and safely (Daigle, 2012). Garrity warnings have been tested and have held up under a number of Supreme Court cases, including McKinley v. City of Mansfield (Daigle, 2012).
Decision
Daigle (2012) suggests that the most important thing that must be done in regards to establishing appropriate procedure for Garrity warnings is the development of a thorough understanding of the case law. Daigle (2012) suggests that Garrity warnings must be used when an officer is under threat of termination, and when the questions that are asked of the officer are “directly and narrowly tailored” to the officer’s job or the ability of that officer to do his or her job (Daigle, 2012). The application of the decision, according to Daigle (2012), has been too widely used. Daigle (2012) even suggests that there is a lack of ability on the part of departments to question employees because departments are misusing and misunderstanding the principle in the Garrity case.
Daigle (2012) suggests, further, that distinguishing features of statements and routine reports must be made in the current law enforcement paradigm. Administrative and internal affairs professionals must be able to appropriately understand how and when to use the statements given to them by personnel. When an officer issues a statement under Garrity protection, that statement cannot be compelled by or used by prosecutors in any way, regardless of how prosecutors come by this statement.
The decision overall states that many law enforcement individuals and administrative personnel misunderstand the decision that has been set forth in Garrity. The decision is meant to protect both officers and the law enforcement system as a whole, and it should be read with this kind of protective intent in mind. Too strict or too lose a reading of this particular ruling can lead to inefficiency and imbalance in the system.
Alternative Solution
The alternative reading to Garrity is, of course, being used in many different law enforcement agencies in the United States, according to Daigle (2012). The current use is such that it allows the Garrity principle to be involved when dealing with collective bargaining issues (Daigle, 2012). Garrity could be adapted to cover many more privileges, effectively hobbling law enforcement agencies and hampering the ability of internal affairs to conduct the appropriate investigations in many different agencies around the country (Daigle, 2012). Daigle (2012) suggests that a Garrity warning is indeed enough to compel a statement even if there is a pending criminal investigation; the author suggests that these answers should never be used in court, and that in criminal prosecution these answers should be entirely unusable (Daigle, 2012).
Conclusion
Overall Daigle (2012) suggests that the rampant misuse and misunderstanding of the Garrity warning is something that has a profound effect on the administrative and managerial part of law enforcement. Law enforcement has to have a way to elicit responses from employees to determine employees’ willingness and ability to do their jobs; this should be entirely separate from the criminal prosecution that can occur as a result of criminal misconduct (Daigle, 2012). The current application, according to Daigle (2012), effectively cripples the ability of the overseers in the law enforcement industry to perform managerial tasks. Because the Garrity principle has been so frequently misused and misappropriated, it has become something of a difficulty for departments now, and many departments cannot draw a distinction between a statement and the kind of reports that are both routine and necessary. These are the kinds of distinctions that must begin to be drawn (Daigle, 2012).
References
Daigle. E. P. (2012). Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question. The Police Chief. 79:12, 12-13.
International Union of Police Associations. (2016). GARRITY RIGHTS REVIEWED. Iupa.org. Retrieved 6 April 2016, from https://iupa.org/garrity-rights-reviewed/
