Facts
The Supreme Court case, Garrity v. New Jersey recognized rigid standards for law enforcement officers concerning explanations that were given to their managers. Garitty principle applies to an officer who gives an implicating articulation out of fear that he or she may lose their source of income. It is the duty of the investigating officer to advise the subject that constrained responses would not be admissible in future hearings by a jurist.
Consequently, the subject’s responses would not be an exhibit in criminal proceedings. This principle protects subjects against inflammatory remarks during the investigation. However, their responses can be utilized for regulators or administrative reviews. In contrast, if the subject declines to consent or give a confession, the law stipulates penalties. In accordance with Garrity principle, the prosecutor must assure the subject that case reviews and cross-examinations must relate to the officer’s duty and obligations. It is important to note that the officer cannot be exposed to criminal charges when they provide false proclamations (Diagle, 2005).
Decision
It was decided that if such an episode were presented before the courts, the cross-examination and the response would be considered as pressured if the officer were given a chance to apply their Fifth Amendment rights. The decisions originated from the conclusion that it was illogical to put an enforcement officer in a situation to self-implicate or risk their integrity and occupation for conjuring the Fifth Amendment. The Garrity interpretation states that a representative can be given a request to coordinate in an inner examination and be constrained to sincerely respond to allegations concerning their superiors (McGuinness, 2013). However, responses from such investigation would remain docile in future hearings.
Alternative Solution
Based on the facts available, the decision by the jurist is appropriate. However, such decisions could create doubts and cause confusion in employees who are pressured over an obstruction from work laws. Based on this submission, McKinley v. City of Mansfield led an examination concerning the improper use of police gadgets and equipment to collect confidential information from several cordless telephones or cell phones. As a result, 30 enforcement officers were cross-examined regarding the event. One of the officers was named McKinley. The officer gave false explanations during the first meeting. However, the investigation summoned another cross-examination and applied two legal terms. The investigator applied the Garrity law to provide immunity for the respondent while admitting a criminal proceeding (Diagle, 2005). The cross-examiner was gathering information about the erroneous explanations and the event of that faithful day. It is important to note that the officer sued and won the claim because the prosecutors attempted to utilize the data under Garrity against him, which abused his Fifth Amendment Rights (Diagle, 2005).
Based on the analysis, I believe the appropriate decision was to punish the officer based on their testimonies. When a subject appears to be a dishonest, mechanism should be created to punish the individual. For example, the case of State v. Jackson is an illustration of Garrity connected with the law. The lead prosecutor did not submit any testimony from the subject. However, he approached the judge with evidence from an anonymous witness. The Ohio Supreme Judge decided that because the examiners had given a convincing report to the prosecutor, Garrity law had been abused for Mr. Jackson. The judge warned investigators to operate in accordance with the law without manipulation the Garrity principle. By implication, investigators should resist the temptation of providing confessional statements to prosecutors. The Ohio Supreme Court additionally proposed that to keep the laws isolated, employees should seek redress after court summons and judgments.
Based on the proposal, the disciplinary unit of the law should allow the court proceedings before constituting a committee of inquiry to investigate the subject. Once the court proceedings have been established, the employer can direct an inward examination to punish the worker if found liable. The human asset office should proceed with the task of finding honest enforcement officers to mitigate such occurrences. Thus, in my opinion, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment were disregarded in the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield. By implication, the subject was pressured to provide confessional statements. Therefore, citing the Fifth Amendment, I believe that the officer’s implicating confessions cannot be used in the court (McGuinness, 2013). In view of the discoveries, the division sacked the officer who was later restored with full privileges. The court held that McKinley’s testimonials were inadmissible because of the Garrity principle. McKinley documented a claim showing they abused his Fifth Amendment rights by compelling him to provide implicating confessions that were later utilized as a part of an indictment against him.
Conclusion
Garrity laws were created to guarantee that constrained or pressured testimonies are not admissible in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the police department should act with caution to avoid such occurrence. Internal investigation should only be escalated after the courts have given its judgment. However, if the Garrity principle has been invoked, confessions should be allowed no matter its implication. The report would be treated without external investigators.
References
Diagle, E. (2005). Garrity warning: To give or not to give, that is the question. Web.
McGuinness, J, (2013). Fifth Amendment protection for public employees: Garrity and limited constitutional protections from use of employer coerced statements in internal investigations and practical considerations. Touro Law Review, 24(4), 1-44.