Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

How Garrity v. New Jersey Transformed Public Employee Discipline

by September 27, 2023
September 27, 2023
How Garrity v. New Jersey  Transformed Public Employee Discipline

Walter Olson

In Garrity v. New Jersey (1967), one of the most remarkable decisions of the Warren Court, a 5–4 majority of justices said public employees cannot be found guilty of crimes based on their admissions in disciplinary interviews conducted as a condition of employment.

Justice Harlan, writing in dissent, said the majority had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the constitutional right against compelled self‐​incrimination. The relevant scope of “involuntary as a matter of law,” in his view, should be seen to reach only situations of actual legal compulsion, not those in which the price you pay for declining to speak frankly about how you behaved on the job is that your employer might not want to keep you on its payroll.

Garrity has become a key element of legal weaponry for public employees and their unions seeking to minimize consequences for on‐​duty misbehavior. (Although the original setting was one involving police officers, the decision applies broadly to public employment generally.)

(Getty Images)

Aside from its momentous reading of employment relations as themselves a species of coercion, Garrity has been cited as a key breakthrough for the “New Property” ideas associated with the late Yale law professor Charles Reich. He had argued that the holding of a government job or the receipt of welfare benefits should be analogized to property and protected in similar fashion by vigorous judicial action.

The Garrity doctrine plays a key role in this stomach‐​churning new Reason cover story by C.J. Ciaramella about impunity for prison rape.

Internal Affairs [at the federal Bureau of Prisons] then forced the correctional officers to sit for sworn interviews. Once those officers confessed to sexual assault, the possibility of criminal prosecution evaporated [under Garrity]…

By compelling prison guards to admit to criminal conduct, BOP internal affairs investigators got enough dirt to kick them out of the agency but also shielded them from future criminal prosecution.

Although it would technically be possible for federal prosecutors to bring charges now, they would have to rely on other evidence and prove that nothing in their case was tainted by those interviews. Perversely, the more detailed and thorough the confession, the harder it is to prosecute—a feature that any BOP employee who screws up badly enough to get called in for a sworn interview understands.

Interviews held on a condition of non‐​prosecution are known as “Garrity interviews,” but they had a nickname:

A former correctional officer at [the problem institution] says they were called “queen for a day.” As in, “Did you hear that Smith got queen for a day?” The term is more commonly used in criminal law to refer to a proffer agreement between federal prosecutors and a potential defendant—basically, spill the beans in exchange for possible immunity—but it worked much the same way between BOP internal affairs investigators and correctional officers.

Garrity interviews also allowed the BOP to quietly remove problem officers without the media attention that criminal charges would bring.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the 1967 decision has had some gravely damaging consequences. As an error in constitutional interpretation, it cannot practically be revised or revisited by agencies themselves, by lawmakers, or by lower court judges. That leaves the high court itself. Is it wise or prudent for the U.S. Supreme Court to afford Garrity the eternal benefit of stare decisis?

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Labour mayors urge Sunak not to scrap, delay or scale back HS2
next post
3.8 Million Middle Eastern or North Africans in the United States in 2021

You may also like

Friday Feature: Black Homeschoolers of Birmingham

December 8, 2023

America’s Third Founding: May 24, 1924, the Immigration...

May 24, 2024

Friday Feature: The Attuned Community School

February 2, 2024

Surprisingly, the World Is Becoming More Equal

June 8, 2023

New Survey: Private School Enrollment Grew from the...

March 26, 2024

101 Late Fees Charged by the Government

May 17, 2024

It Is Not Too Late to Rethink the...

November 2, 2023

Spending Madness 2024 Contest

March 18, 2024

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Boom Days Ahead for...

June 27, 2023

People v. Armstrong Brief: Marijuana Odor Can’t Be...

May 13, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ‘Presidential incapacity’: Senate Republican seeks paper trail of Biden’s autopen use

      June 26, 2025
    • Dem senator accuses top Trump official of being responsible for ‘hundreds of thousands of children dying’

      June 26, 2025
    • White House drops ‘Daddy’s Home’ meme after viral NATO summit moment

      June 26, 2025
    • Sterility test sample flawed, admits DHSC statistics expert in ppe medpro trial

      June 26, 2025
    • From Drift to Lift: Spotting Breakouts Before Momentum Hits

      June 26, 2025
    • Breakdown of NVDA’s Stock Price and S&P 500: Actionable Technical Insights

      June 26, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,316)
    • Investing (2,074)
    • Politics (15,821)
    • Stocks (3,170)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved