Garrity v. New Jersey
385 U.S. 493 (1967)
Facts
In June 1961, the New Jersey Supreme Court directed the state Attorney General to investigate reports of "ticket fixing" in the townships of Bellmawr and Barrington. During the investigation, six employees came under suspicion: three from Bellmawr, including a police officer, a court clerk, and Police Chief Edward Garrity; and three from Barrington, all police officers.
Before being questioned, each employee was advised that:
Each employee then answered questions, and some of their answers were used over their objections in subsequent prosecutions, which resulted in their convictions for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws.
The employees appealed their convictions, arguing that their statements were coerced and thus in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their convictions were upheld by the State Supreme Court, and they appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court.
Before being questioned, each employee was advised that:
- Anything s/he said might be used in a criminal proceeding;
- S/he had the privilege to refuse to answer if the answer would tend to be self-incriminatory;
- Refusal to answer would be cause for removal from office.
Each employee then answered questions, and some of their answers were used over their objections in subsequent prosecutions, which resulted in their convictions for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws.
The employees appealed their convictions, arguing that their statements were coerced and thus in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their convictions were upheld by the State Supreme Court, and they appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court.
Issue
". . . whether a State, contrary to the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, can use the threat of discharge to secure incriminatory evidence against an employee" (499).
Holding
The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court was reversed. The employees' convictions were overturned.
Reasoning
- "The threat of removal from public office . . . rendered the resulting statements involuntary and therefore inadmissible in the state criminal proceedings" (493).
- "The choice given petitioners either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves constituted coercion" (494).
- "The choice imposed on petitioners was one between self-incrimination or job forfeiture" (496).
- "The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent" (497).
- "Policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights" (500).
- "We now hold that the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic" (500).
Commentary
Obviously, this is the case that gives "Garrity Rights" their name. This case and its progeny have become a critical part of public sector labor relations, particularly in law enforcement. Garrity-related issues have also become increasingly common in publicly-operated nursing home facilities, where allegations of resident abuse sometimes arise.
Some argue that Garrity Rights are an example of public employees being afforded "special" rights not enjoyed by others. This is a false argument. All citizens have the constitutional right not to be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves. This does not change simply because one is employed by the government itself. If public employees did not have Garrity protection, they would have fewer rights than other citizens.
Some argue that Garrity Rights are an example of public employees being afforded "special" rights not enjoyed by others. This is a false argument. All citizens have the constitutional right not to be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves. This does not change simply because one is employed by the government itself. If public employees did not have Garrity protection, they would have fewer rights than other citizens.
