DISCUSSION BOARD 350 WORDS
For your thread, answer at least 1 of the following questions of your choice (you can discuss as many as you like):
1. Discuss any of the causes of organizational conflict(s). Then discuss how best to handle the issues of the conflict(s) that you chose.
2. Explain briefly how chronic health issues have an effect on the cost of operating a criminal justice organization. What is the best manner in which to reduce any said cost if you were asked to design the health benefit package?
3. Explore and discuss the major changes that have come to public employee unions since the swearing in of a
CASE STUDY CRITIQUES INSTRUCTIONS
You are required to write critiques of 2 case studies in the course based on the articles provided in the assigned modules/weeks' Reading & Study folders.
Each case study critique must be between 3-5 pages (not including the title, abstract, and reference pages) in current APA format and must discuss the major facts of the case. You must tell whether or not you believe the right decisions were made and why. Follow the guidelines listed below:
• Identify the important facts in the case study.
• What decisions were or were not made in the case study?
• Do you believe the decisions or best practices were appropriate?
• Discuss any alternative solutions to the problem and support those solutions with additional research (in other words, support your solution with similar cases).
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Make sure each section is labeled appropriately (Facts, Decision, Alternative Solution, Conclusion).
• Citation style: current APA
• All papers must use the following format: Times New Roman, 12-point font, 1" margins from left to right and top to bottom, and double spaced.
Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question By Eric P. Daigle, Esq., Daigle Law Group, Southington, Connecticut; and Secretary, IACP Legal Officers Section
I travel the country and work with different police departments, I am troubled by the inconsistency and the lack of knowledge of police management regarding use of Garrity in administrative investigations. I have learned that while investigators and management are aware of the practice of using Garrity warnings, as created by the case Garrity v. New Jersey,1 these warnings are misinterpreted and misapplied throughout the United States.
In law enforcement organizations, the Garrity principle is an important tool to provide officers the necessary protections while still enabling departments to conduct thorough and complete internal investigations. In a given agency, what is more important: the criminal investigation or the discipline of the employee for a violation of department policy? It may matter whom one asks. In a given department, is a Garrity warning given to compel a statement if there is a potential criminal investigation?
During an administrative investigation of an officer, the agency head or representatives (that is, internal affairs investigators) are permitted to and generally should compel the subject officer to truthfully answer questions that are narrowly tailored to the scope of the subject's job as a police officer. The basic principle of Garrity is that when the statement taken from the subject officer is compelled, the statement and the evidence derived from the statement cannot be used against the subject officer in a criminal action against the officer arising from the same circumstances about which the officer was questioned. This article attempts to clarify-or asks readers to consider-whether agencies are applying Garrityprinciples inconsistently because of a clear lack of judicial interpretation, creating the perceived belief that the agency cannot question its own employees.
The Garrity Principle
In Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court established some straight forward rules regarding situations in which police officers are compelled to provide statements to their employers. Under Garrity, an incriminating statement obtained from an officer who is compelled to provide the statement under the threat of job loss if the officer invokes the right to remain silent may not be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding. The court found that such a statement is deemed coerced if the officer is denied a meaningful opportunity to assert Fifth Amendment rights. The court reasoned that it is unacceptable to put an officer in the position of choosing whether to self-incriminate or to risk job loss for invoking the Fifth Amendment.
The application of Garrity warnings provides that an employee can be ordered to cooperate in an internal or administrative investigation and be compelled to truthfully answer questions that are specifically, directly, and narrowly related to the employee's official conduct. Any statements made pursuant to an order to cooperate in such an investigation-and any evidence derived from that statement-may not be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding. For Garrity to apply, the statement must be compelled and not voluntary.
Garrity is a management prerogative that should not be part of the collective bargaining agreement that would allow subordinate officers the authority to invoke it to protect themselves. The principle and its application have been established by the U.S. Supreme Court, and there is no reason for management to expand the privilege. Yet, why is the law not being consistently applied? Many departments have taken Garrity, allowed it to be stretched beyond its intended purpose, and have applied a blanket application to routine parts of an officer's job duty or routine documentation of activities. The result is the apparent exclusion or loss of important evidence that may serve to quickly exonerate officers who have followed department policy and quickly discipline officers who have failed to follow policy. At the other end of the spectrum, some departments have failed to shield involuntary statements obtained through Garrity warnings from criminal investigators or prosecutors. This practice has the effect of tainting information obtained from these statements and the possibility to render unusable other critical evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Application of the Garrity Principles.