Explaining Garrity to LE employees

I will be the first to say and back-up Randy in the statement that the entire IA process needs to be transparent. But I have also seen the 'transparency' issue carried to both extreme's and political stupidity. And no where do I see either a model policy or documented court decison as to the admissability of a polygraph in either a Departmental Board of Rights or LEOBR Hearing. You want to use a 'poly' to destroy an Officer's career, someone had better be able to cite where the 'poly' can be used to do so.

We all know, and have used, the tactic of phrasing the question to elict the desired answer we want to hear. IA uses the same tactic (are their any PBA, FOP or IUPA counsel's reading this ?) ? If so, then the counsel's letting IA to get away with it is a H-U-G-E disservice to their clients.

When IA investigates, it needs to be for a real reason, not just because someone is trying to get out of a traffic ticket or some other crap. Part of IA's job is to investigate and determine if there is even a legitimate complaint in the first place. Do I doubt that there are valid complaints out there ? Not at all. But every complaint needs to be addressed as either valid or just plain old 'whining'. And when the complaint is found valid, a step by step process is followed to ensure that EVERYONE'S point of view, circumstances, history and evidence is given equal and realistic weight. Otherwise IA becomes just another part of the Chief's or Sheriff's Hatchet Squad. After all, the Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee equal and due process to all, becomes just another piece of paper that was written for the powerful or rich or politically incumbent to rationalize thier actions with. And in this day and age we, as law enforcement officers, have seen entirely too much of this.

Somewhere, somehow, sometime, a stand needs to be taken so that we as officers are free to do our jobs, free from the intimidation of the "Boss's" or the politically connected crooks who seek to use the IA process as a means of 'getting around' the law that is supposed to protect us all, not just the few for their personal or financial gain. Matt Fogg's case w/ U.S. Marshal's Service and recent Hill case in Los Angeles are all examples of the law finally being forced to realize that we as Officers are also supposed to be under the same protections as everyone else.

When the time comes, which side of the line are you gonna' be on ? And the time is growing short.

I think Mike in Maine makes some great points, especially that investigations should be pertinent to the duty at hand.

However, I cannot help but find it ironic that officers dislike the same methods that are used on citizens, but then contend that the constitution makes us all equal and free. Does this mean some are more equal than others?

To paraphrase some of my peers "You might beat the problem, but you won't beat the poly".

While I agree that it should be explained to officers, they shouldn't have lied in the first place. Are not LEO's held to the highest level of conduct? I was a CJ student for years, but went down a different route (sound engineer) still, I was taught by an awesome instructor, Chief Bernabei Peru Illinois, and he wouldn't have put up with that rubbish.

I agree with Alexander. Cops can not nor should not use the same dishonest investigvation methods use on citizens if they are not going to used it on themselves. However, with civil liberties being eroded in this country, I would not be surprise to see more cops get railroad because they directly or indirectly help destory our liberties.

Many people in this country still see the Internal Affairs as a unit that protects the police officers at all costs whether the complaints are valid or not. For a long time, the LAPD Internal Affairs protect cops that were involved in unjustificable shootings.

In addition, some cops had to transfer to Internal Affairs because after they had turn in some bad cops, because Internal Affairs was the only place to continue their police careers. Their fellow cops (whether bad cops or good cops) couldn't or wouldn't work with the honest cops anymore. One Canadian cop stated that working in Internal Affairs was one of worst assignments she ever had to do which is why in her department, you only do a two year tour of duty at Internal Affairs before being rotated out to other units.

In Response to J. Morgan:

Obviously the officer's shouldn't lie. Part of this article addresses the fact that if the officer was more aware of the cause for the garrity warning and the ramifications for lying under garrity. The idea is that if officers are more aware of the process and the garrity warning then they will be less likely to lie and tell the truth.

I have never understood why people try and lie to IA. Everyone i have seen get investigated by IA including myself has gone up there knowing that if they ask you the question, they already know the answer. So just tell the truth. If you are not breaking the law then you don't have to worry about losing your job.

If there is such uncertainty about poloygraphs plus the reliability of them and no documeted court decision to make them admissible at a board hearing or in a regular court of law, then why use them in police investigations or where you are applying for a job (police and non-police)? It seems that it is another failed piece of crime fighting technology that was suppose to help the police become more adept at geting a confession/convictions

Explaining is easy, it's the being sure they understand part that's hard. The problem I have is, if polygraph and voice stress testing is 'not' permited to be admited as legal evidence in a court of law, then why does the police agencies use them at all? The only purpose is to intimidate officers and potential officers. An 'offical excuse' to keep someone out of a department, that administration doesn't want hired. And a position for officers who want a nice soft job, and to keep retires on the pay roll. Outside of these, there is no need nor reason to continue to use something that has been proven ineffective, and useless.

Thanks for the information, John G. In my department, we keeping bringing back retire former high ranking retired guys who don't know how to enjoy their retirement plus they are always complaining how they need more money despite the fact many of them were earning six figures before they retired, and they get 90% retirement pay.

For the money, these guys get when they come back, my department could use the that money to hire more people in rank and file positions, so we can fulfill our mission statements. Otherwise, we keep hearing from our regular high ranking officers don't want to hear our reasons about how come we can't do our jobs and then they accuse us of being incompetent.

Before you get involved in a garrity hearing, tell your lawyer to make sure that if i.a tryed to get a criminal warrant out on you first and the warrant was denied and thats before you participate in a garrity hearing, reason an officer i know made statements at a garrity hearing, told the truth, after the hearing, 2 weeks later the prosecutor signed a felony warrant on him, at the preliminary hearing, the statements he gave at the garrity were used against him at the preliminary hearing he was bound over to trial due to the garrity statements. His lawyer had to get a walker hearing and get the statements suppresed, they were succesful but the prosecutor still went to trial, and the prosecutor lost the case. Good thing it worked for the officer but, could have been the other way easly. Can you imagine if the officer would have got convicted, the bull s&$# he would have had to go through on appeals.

...Miranda. Do not, under any circumstances, forget that once statements of an incriminating nature go into the realm of criminal activity Garrity stops and Miranda begins. The investigators have an obligation to make sure that the officer being subjected to a Garrity Hearing is aware that though they are bound to tell the truth during the Garrity phase (as they should be doing anyway) once it gets to a point where criminal procedings will begin they must be read Miranda.