Garrity Rights
Garrity Rights:
What Are They And What Does It
BY YVETTE BRO, VICE PRESIDENT / GRIEVANCE CHAIR, PLEA
It is apparent to PLEA that with the new use-of-force policy that was just implemented, and the department’ s current direction, we are going to see more NOIs issued and more PSB interviews conducted. It is not a matter of if, but when, you will be a subject or a witness to some kind of potential misconduct investigation. Before any questions are asked, your Garrity rights will be implied and on the record. I believe it is important to understand what Garrity means to you and where it came from.
One of the most significant legal cases affecting police officers across the country is Garrity v. New Jersey, a 1967 US Supreme Court ruling that safeguards officers from being compelled to incriminate themselves during internal investigations. This landmark case is not just about legal principles— it is about ensuring that officers are treated fairly under the law, just like the citizens they serve. Understanding Garrity is essential for officers, police unions, and anyone invested in the integrity of law enforcement.
THE ORIGINS OF GARRITY V. NEW JERSEY
The case of Garrity v. New Jersey arose in the early 1960s when police officers in New Jersey were investigated for alleged ticket-fixing. During the investigation, officers were interrogated by state officials and given an ultimatum: either answer the
8 • AZPLEA. COM questions or face termination from their positions. They were also warned that their statements could be used against them in criminal proceedings. The officers, under duress, answered the questions. Their statements were later used to prosecute them, leading to their convictions. However, the officers challenged this practice, arguing that it violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court.
THE SUPREME COURT’ S DECISION
In a 5 – 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officers, establishing a crucial precedent. The Court determined that law enforcement officers— and other public employees— cannot be forced to choose between self-incrimination and job security. Statements made under the threat of job loss are considered coerced and cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings.
The ruling was based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution:
• The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases.
• The Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process and equal protection under the law, extending the protections of the Fifth Amendment to state actions.
The Supreme Court’ s decision in Garrity made it clear: when an officer is compelled to answer questions under the threat of job loss, those statements cannot later be used against them in a criminal prosecution.
THE IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Garrity ruling has had a profound impact on law enforcement and how internal investigations are conducted. Police officers, like all other citizens, are entitled to constitutional protections, and Garrity ensures that their rights are not violated during workplace investigations. This ruling has influenced department policies, union negotiations, and legal strategies across the nation.
1. The Use Of Garrity Warnings
In response to Garrity, many law enforcement agencies now issue what are known as“ Garrity warnings.” These warnings inform officers that:
• they are being ordered to answer questions related to an internal investigation,
• their statements cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding, and
• refusal to answer questions may result in disciplinary action, including termination.
Garrity warnings function similarly to Miranda warnings, ensuring that officers understand their rights before