Garrity v. New Jersey
385 U.S. 493 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The protection against coerced statements under the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained from public employees under threat of removal from office.
Facts:
- Appellants Garrity, Virtue, Holroyd, Elwell, and Murray were police officers in several New Jersey boroughs.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered an investigation into allegations of traffic ticket fixing in the officers' municipalities.
- The state's Attorney General questioned each officer as part of the investigation.
- Before being questioned, each officer was warned that anything he said could be used against him in a state criminal proceeding.
- Each officer was also advised that he had the privilege to refuse to answer questions if the answers would tend to incriminate him.
- Finally, each officer was warned that, under a New Jersey statute, he would be subject to removal from office if he refused to answer.
- Faced with the choice of answering or losing their jobs, the officers answered the questions.
- The answers they provided were subsequently used in prosecutions against them for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of traffic laws.
Procedural Posture:
- The incriminating statements made by the police officers were introduced as evidence in their criminal trials in a New Jersey state trial court.
- The officers were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws.
- The officers appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, arguing that their statements were coerced and involuntary.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the convictions, finding the statements to be voluntary.
- The officers then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does using statements obtained from public employees under threat of removal from office in a subsequent criminal prosecution violate the Fourteenth Amendment's protection against coerced confessions?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. Using statements obtained from public employees under the threat of removal from office in a criminal prosecution violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The choice imposed on the officers between self-incrimination and job forfeiture is the antithesis of a free choice to speak or to remain silent, and it constitutes coercion. The Court reasoned that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that subtle pressures can deprive an accused of their 'free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.' The Court rejected the older principle that public employment is a privilege to which the government can attach any condition, including the waiver of constitutional rights. Citing Slochower v. Board of Education, the Court affirmed that the privilege against self-incrimination cannot be nullified by imposing a penalty like job loss for its assertion. Therefore, policemen, like all other citizens, are not relegated to a 'watered-down version of constitutional rights,' and statements compelled by the threat of job loss are inadmissible in a criminal proceeding.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The use of the statements does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the threat of removal from office for refusing to answer questions about public duties is a permissible condition of public employment, and the statements were not, in fact, involuntary. The dissent argued that the interrogations lacked any of the usual indicia of duress, such as physical coercion or psychological persuasion, and that the officers' wills were not overborne. More fundamentally, the state has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of its public employees, especially police officers. Requiring an employee to answer questions pertinent to their official duties on pain of dismissal is a reasonable and necessary means of enforcing standards of conduct. This sanction does not penalize the exercise of the privilege itself but rather addresses the employee's fitness for public employment. A public employee should not be able to use the privilege as a shield to protect their job while refusing to account for their official actions.
Analysis:
This case establishes a key principle in the 'penalty cases' doctrine, holding that the government cannot impose a substantial penalty, such as job loss, on an individual for exercising their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The decision effectively creates a form of use immunity for public employees who are compelled to testify in internal investigations under threat of termination. It marks a significant shift away from the old right-privilege distinction, which viewed public employment as a privilege that could be conditioned on the forfeiture of constitutional rights. By treating the threat of job loss as a form of unconstitutional coercion, Garrity v. New Jersey strengthens the protections for public employees and limits the government's ability to use its power as an employer to obtain incriminating evidence for criminal prosecutions.
Unlock the full brief for Garrity v. New Jersey