Explaining Garrity to LE employees

For many years I have worked, taught, and preached about an officer's rights during an administrative investigation. However, I have never felt that we as Internal Affairs Investigators completely explain to the officers their rights under Garrity. I have seen investigators seated in a room with the accused reading a copy of the Garrity warning approved by their department. They then begin their interview. No other explanation is given or a chance for the officers to ask what the warning really means.

The Supreme Court has ruled in many opinions that when an accused is afforded Miranda that we should insure certain things. Such as, the offender comprehends the warning. They can read or write. They understand the meaning between right and wrong. They fully understand the gravity of the issue and our obligation to insure they are treated fairly.

Okay, what is the difference in Garrity and Miranda? Put yourself in the officer's shoes. For example, bring the officer in, read them Garrity, and start asking questions without an explanation as why they are there. Are you being fair to the officer? I would say no, you are not. Open the interview by explaining the process to them. Then read Garrity and delve into the Garrity case. Explain Garrity and how we got to where we are. If they have never heard of the decision then tell them. Do not spend an enormous amount of time explaining the decision but let them know the basics. Keep it simple but effective.

The case started with a ticket-fixing scheme in New Jersey. The officers were interviewed and told they had to answer truthfully to the criminal investigators. If they did not then they would be fired. They were subsequently charged and fired. The Supreme Court ruled that the actions by the employer were in fact coercion. Officers are told that they are compelled to make a statement to their supervisor or designee about a criminal matter under investigation. The officer is given immunity and the statement will not be used against them. Their answers will be directly and narrowly related to the incident under investigation.

Officers should be warned about the consequences of lying under Garrity. Talk with the officers about Veal v. Watson, 526 U.S. 1147. In the Veal case, the officers made false statements they perceived were protected by the Garrity warning. Simply put the officers in this case were involved in the death of a drug dealer. The officers concocted a lie to cover the murder. They were charged on a 1983 action in US district court. The case resulted in acquittal.

Later charges were brought against the defendants for giving false statements. The officers were subsequently charged and convicted for lying under Garrity. The 11th District court stated that once immunity is given one could either tell the truth or not say anything at all. There is no third option and that of lying. Again, this is short and to the point.

Look at what we can do to handle these issues before we have the officers in the interview. Take another step. Give an in-service class and go over Garrity, Veal, and other decisions. Explain that they have due process to a fair, thorough, and impartial investigation. The investigation will not be slanted or, biased. The "normal" span of time for the investigation averages thirty days. The officer will be notified in writing of the internal investigation. There is no easy way to tell an officer of an investigation concerning their activities; it is recommended the agency do it by letter. However, do so privately. Be there to answer questions the officer may have. Under no circumstances should a committee of supervisors confront the officer and inform them of the investigation. This is displays intimidation, coercion, and a feeling of a biased investigation.

Garrity is given to a government employee to grant them testimonial immunity in most states. What this means to the officer is that their statement and only the statement cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Explaining this to the officers helps to get the truth of the incident. It is easier on the officer knowing this.

Inform them of the polygraph policy that you have if any. The majority of agencies in the country are requiring that the complainant take a polygraph first. This is recommended policy to all agencies. This is fair to the officer, department, and complainant. It upholds the integrity of the department and all concerned in the process that is in place.

In conclusion, explaining the process openly to all officers is exactly what every police department should do. An educated officer and department is a well running machine. Transparency of a department is what we want to achieve. In other words, "educate them!"