Garrity Warnings - This an case critique assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

This an case critique assignment...

Description

CASE STUDY CRITIQUE

1

Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give: That Is the Question Abstract Garrity warnings are used when a law enforcement agency conducts an internal investigation on an officer who has allegations against them. Under this rule, when an officer testifies or makes a statement during an investigation, what the officers says cannot be used against him when a criminal trial has commenced against them. Different cases have used the Garrity principle to determine an officer’s guilt or innocence, but one that comes to mind is McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F. 3d 418 (2005). This case brought forth numerous facts and decisions. Facts McKinley worked as a police officer for the police department when an investigation was ensued on the administration of all the officers (Eric, December 2012). Every officer had to go through an interview, and they were all placed under the Garrity Principle. However, McKinley did not tell the truth during his interview. This caused the investigator to start a second interview with McKinley. He was told of the allegations against him and the Garrity principle. This in turn led to McKinley admitting he lied during his interview; therefore, this began a case of him lying (Eric, December 2012). McKinley was told he would have to have a second interview due to him lying during the first one (Eric, December 2012). Once the second interview was complete, the investigator turned the statements in that McKinley made and any of the findings that were found during both interviews to prosecutors to prosecute McKinley. Based on what was found, McKinley was fired from his job but eventually got the same job back, and he even received all pay and benefits he did not receive as if he were working. This was based on the collective bargaining agreement that was reached when the case went to arbitration (Eric, December 2012). When everything was all

CASE STUDY CRITIQUE

2

said and done, McKinley was charged with obstruction of operations of the department, as well as lying about the information that was told to the investigator. Decision When McKinley was charged in court, he made a motion to suppress the statements he made to keep them from being used against him in court. The judge did not grant his motion, and allowed them to be used anyway. Due to the statements that were made by McKinley, he was convicted of what he was accused of (Eric, December 2012). When he appealed his conviction, they dropped the convictions against him because the department knew the statements McKinley made would not be able to be used in court. Therefore, McKinley took out charges against the City of Mansfield and the investigating officers, as well as certain other officers of the police department (Eric, December 2012). McKinley was granted a summary judgment to the defendants, but once again, upon appeal, it was reversed. The court still deemed McKinley was responsible for the charges against him because of his first interview. The case of McKinley, best practices were needed in the case to ensure fairness when applying the law (Eric, December 2012). It was fair that best practices were used in this case because it is important to make sure every officer is protected, the law is upheld, and the department is protected as well. Alternative In this case, I do not see there is a need for an alternative that needs to be used that would be able to be applied. The prosecution should not have been able to use the statements McKinley said under the Garrity principle (Eric, December 2012). The investigating officer was incorrect in using the second interview as evidence against McKinley to bring charges against him because they were made under the Garrity principle. The officer did have a right to prosecute the

CASE STUDY CRITIQUE

3

investigating officer and other officers of the department, but there were no other actions to be taken after what had taken place (Eric, December 2012). The department was correct to take McKinley to court, but only off the first interview because that is the one that was not truthful. Solution The solution between McKinley and the department can be reached based on arbitration. This will allow each party to come to some form of common agreement. This method helps to uphold the reputation of the officers and the department, and also make sure every party involved is satisfied with what is agreed upon. Conclusion The Garrity warning principle is important in any department because it helps protect the statements of officers who are investigated. It should also never be used in the wrong way to aid in the department breaking the law themselves. Law enforcement agencies should be very careful how they use and apply this principle. Reference Eric P. Daigle, “Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question,” Chief’s Counsel, The Police Chief 79 (December 2012): 12-13....