Garrity Rights
In Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that statements obtained in the course of an investigatory interview under threat of termination from public employment couldn’t be used as evidence against the employee in subsequent criminal proceedings.
If, however, you refuse to answer questions after you have been assured that your statements cannot be used against you in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the refusal to answer questions thereafter may lead to the imposition of discipline for insubordination.
Further, while the statements you make may not be used against you in a subsequent criminal proceeding, they can still form the basis for discipline on the underlying work-related charge.
- If I refuse to talk, can I be disciplined for the refusal?
- Can that discipline include termination from employment?
- Are my answers for internal and administrative purposes only and are not to be used for criminal prosecution?
Garrity Statement
"On (state date/time) at (place), I was ordered to give this statement (report) by (name/title). I give this Statement (report) at his/her order as a condition of employment. I understand that I may face disciplinary action for disobeying this order so I have no alternative but to abide by the order.
It is my belief and understanding that this statement (report) is required solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not be released to any other person or agency. It is my further belief that this statement (report) will not and cannot be used against me in any criminal proceedings.
For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my rights as provided by the United States Constitution and any other rights prescribed by law. Further, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded me under Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 439 (1967)".
The burden is placed on you to assert your Garrity rights. These rights can and should be asserted whenever you believe you are being investigated for possible criminal conduct.
The Garrity rule stems from a case decided in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, some New Jersey police officers were questioned during the course of a state investigation concerning allegations of ticket-fixing. The officers were ordered to answer investigatory questions under threat of being discharged if they didn't answer. To save their jobs, the officers answered the questions and their answers were later used against them to convict them in a criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the officers' statements in criminal proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that citizens cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves. The Court held that "the choice imposed on [the officers] was one between self-incrimination or job forfeiture," a choice the Court termed "coercion."