The Garrity Rule

In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no public employee may be prosecuted for providing information of a wrong doing after being compelled to provide that information on threat of discipline from their employer.

This means that a public employee may invoke their rights under the Garrity Rule, admit to a criminal wrong doing, and still be allowed to serve the public. For the rule to apply the public servant must have been compelled to answer questions as a condition of being able to keep their job and the line of questioning must directly relate to the employees duties.

The rule came into existence after a few New Jersey police officers who allegedly found a way to fix the traffic ticket system were ordered to talk about the incident or be fired. The police officers talked and were subsequently taken to court. Lawyers for the police officers argued that the jobs of their clients were used to coerce the officers into waiving their 5th amendment rights protecting them against self incrimination.

Since then little has been known about the Garrity Rule. Perhaps the reason that so little is known about it is because the rule is meant to keep cases out of court. The rule has come under scrutiny in St. Louis where the municipal police department has refused to fully comply with a court order to provide an activist with police files pertaining to police officers who were disciplined for seizing 2006 World Series tickets from scalpers and using the tickets for personal gain. The police department claims that they do not have to fully comply with the order because of the Garrity Rule. In the case of the ticket scalping cops, 16 officers were either demoted, suspended, or reprimanded, but none of the involved parties were fired.

While the rule applies to all public employees, it is generally associated with investigations of police misconduct. The rule basically allows a police officer to save their jobs after a wrong doing by cooperating with investigators.

Any tax paying member of the public must ask themselves if this rule is really beneficial to society as a whole. On the one hand, the rule allows Internal Affairs investigators to gather as much information about an incident as possible because more people will be willing to cooperate if they know that they will not be prosecuted. On the other hand, the Garrity Rule protects police officers who obviously lack the mental and moral fortitude to effectively perform their jobs and serve their communities. Under the Garrity Rule, a police officer who admits to breaking the law may only walk away from the experience with a slap on the wrist and a reprimand in a file while still being allowed to carry a gun, enforce laws, arrest citizens, gather evidence, etc.

Arguments can be made from both sides of the fence with the Garrity Rule.

There was a time when police officers were held to a higher standard than the society that they are charged with protecting and serving. Under the Garrity Rule, crooked cops and scum bags are allowed to continue carrying a badge and continue earning a paycheck after admitting to wrong doing. Police officers should know the difference between right and wrong more than anybody because they are the ones that we trust to discern between right and wrong when all hell breaks loose on city streets.

The Garrity Rule needs to be stricken from the law books and every police officer should be made to know that failure to cooperate with an Internal Affairs investigation may cost them their jobs. Police officers who admit to wrong doing should not be allowed to keep their jobs in the absence of extenuating circumstances. The authority that they are given and the balance which they are expected to maintain is far too delicate to be left in the hands of self-admitted crooks and liars.

A public servant who is paid with tax-payer money should be held to the highest of standards, period.

A far better solution would be to swiftly remove the public servant from public service as soon as an admission of guilt or wrong doing is made that would normally amount to criminal charges under the law. The public employee should be allowed two options:

1- Admit to the wrong doing, cooperate with investigators, get fired, and avoid prosecution or,

2- Fail to cooperate with investigators, get fired, and stand trial for their crimes just like everybody else.

The idea of allowing a person who admits to a crime to continue to live off of the backs of the same citizens that he or she has victimized is a disgusting thought that will churn some stomachs.

Public employees must realize that simply being a public employee is not enough to avoid prosecution under the Garrity Rule. Under the rule, the employee must announce that they are invoking their rights under the rule in order to enjoy the blanket of its protection. The Garrity Rule, similar to the Miranda Warning, is a list of statements that advises and attempts to explain in the clearest possible way what privileges the rule extends. Line three of the Garrity Rule explains to the subject that they are being granted limited immunity from prosecution and that no answer given in the course of questioning may be used against them in any criminal proceeding.

To completely do away with the Garrity Rule would be too extreme because it does do a lot of good in helping investigators close cases and solve crimes, but it would be fair to say that the Garrity Rule needs to be closely examined and discussed more publicly.

Sources:

Ratcliffe, Heather. Ticket Scandal Brings Obscure Police Rule to Light. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.