This article accesses the use and application of the Garrity rule in internal investigations of police officers. Apparently, the Garrity rule has not been applied consistently throughout police departments in the country. Some departments have applied the rule as stated by the Supreme Court, others have expanded the rule, while still others have limited the rule. Additionally, the Garrity rule has provided police officers with immunity from prosecution when immunity may not have been appropriate.
Facts
In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), the Supreme Court established a rule pertaining to statements made by officers during internal investigations. The rule has become known as the Garrity Rule or Garrity Warnings. The rule/warnings address compelling statements made by law enforcement officers that are being internally investigated. The rule provides the following: A statement compelled during an internal investigation from an officer that is incriminating may not be used against him or her in criminal proceedings so long as the officer invoked his right to remain silent. The court determined this rule because these types of statements are coerced, as they force the officer to choose between self-incrimination and termination of his police job is coercive.
In the Garrity case, several officers were questioned about allegations of fixing traffic tickets. Prior to questioning, the officers were told if they did not answer the questions, they could be terminated from the department. After answering questions, the officer’s statements were subsequently used in the prosecution of them for conspiracy to obstruct justice. The officers were convicted. They appealed their convictions claiming the statements should not have been used as evidence as the statements were coerced. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and established the Garrity rule.
Under the Garrity rule, an officer may be ordered to cooperate in an internal investigation and to be compelled to answer questions that directly, specifically and narrowly relate to his job as an officer. Any statement or evidence thus obtained cannot be used against the officer in a criminal prosecution. This rule also allows officers to conduct internal investigations without concern.
The issue presented by the author in this article is that not all police departments are applying the Garrity rule as laid out by the Supreme Court, but have instead either expanded or limited the rule. Are departments applying Garrity consistently because there is no judicial interpretation?
Decision
I do not agree with the application of the Garrity rule because if an officer is being investigated internally, and has made a statement that he or she engaged in criminal activity, then a criminal case should proceed. However, I partially agree with the author of this article, as I think that compelled statements and Garrity warnings should not be used in every circumstance of internal investigation, but may be available in certain circumstances. Another defect in the Garrity rule is that it provides law enforcement with immunity that they may not be entitled. Additionally, the rule provides significant discretion to prosecutors to decide when statements can be given immunity which could also provide avenues for corrupt police officers to avoid criminal prosecution.
Alternative Solution
There have been several proposed solutions to the problem of immunity created by Garrity. One solution is to just continue as is and let the problem resolve itself. However, ignoring a problem does not solve a problem. Also, it has been nearly fifty years since the Garrity rule has been adopted and any issues should have worked them out by now. Another solution offered would be to provide a notice and veto requirement to the prosecutors . This has been used been adapted by some agencies. Internal affairs would give notice to prosecutors before questioning the police officer concerning misconduct. The prosecutor could veto the investigation within a certain period of time. Under this solution, there may be issues of the internal affairs agency not using their veto overruling power, and thus allowing Garrity immunity to continue. A third proposed solution is to never allow prosecutors access to internal affairs investigation evidence or statements. The problem with this solution is that it does not eliminate the problem of officers being threatened with termination if they do not provide statements to internal affairs. A final possible solution could be a combination of both the notice and veto option and the sealed. Internal agencies could provide notice to prosecutors, prosecutors could veto the investigation, and then internal affairs could take override the veto through a judicial process and seal the files once the investigation is complete.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the Garrity rule was adopted by the Supreme Court to protect officers from being coerced to give statements, it has led to officers having immunity in situations where immunity may not have been the best logical or ethical resolution. Not only has the Garrity rule been faced with this issue, Garrity has also had problems with consistent application throughout agencies across America. The Garrity rule has not been applied consistently throughout police departments in the country. Some agencies have simply avoided the use of Garrity in order to avoid the issues. Other agencies have made use of the Garrity rule, yet this has led to unlimited use of immunity to very limited use of immunity imposed from the rule. Obviously, some change need to occur and there has to be a solution. A variety of solutions have been proposed. Ignoring the issues is not the solution, nor is providing complete immunity by sealing all internal investigations from prosecutors. The middle line proposed may be an adequate solution. Notifying prosecutors that an investigation of police conduct is going to be conducted internally will allow the prosecution to be advised and either let the investigation continue or provide the opportunity for a determination as to whether the investigation should continue with immunity for all statements made by the officer. Also, a sealing of the investigation documents would resolve some of the issues so long as notice and veto is adopted. Garrity was intended to protect officer from unfair treatment. Garrity was not adopted to provide immunity to officers engaging in criminal behavior under any circumstances.
Bibliography
Daigle, E. P. (2016, April). Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That is the Question. The Police Chief. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2820&issue_id=122012
Niles, B. T. (n.d.). Garrity Warnings: Civil Rights Violations in Municipal Governments. University of St. Thomas School of Law. Retrieved from http://www.lsej.org/documents/472831Garrity%20Warnings%20-%20Niles.pdf
