Ticket scandal brings obscure police rule to light

[Peacemaker]

(Gosh, a special rule for the police and not the people.  Of course, you must realize, this is for the protection of the people)

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/3DED1F88160B53E5862576CA0082721F?OpenDocument

Ticket scandal brings obscure police rule to light
BY HEATHER RATCLIFFE
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/15/2010

ST. LOUIS — It's been more than 40 years since a group of cops in New Jersey got into trouble for allegedly fixing traffic tickets. Bosses told them to talk or be fired. They talked and were prosecuted for their conduct. CRIME STATS
Get the breaking news from our St. Louis Crime Beat blog
See stats around St. Louis and the nation in our searchable database.

But the officers filed suit, claiming their employment was used to coerce them into waiving their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved it with what came to be known as the Garrity Rule. It says a public employee can be compelled by threat of discipline to admit criminal activity, but the information cannot be used for prosecution.

For decades, Garrity has been a quiet staple of operations in the internal affairs units of the St. Louis and St. Louis County police, and other departments nationwide. But it attracted virtually no public attention here until a court hearing last week.

The St. Louis Police Department told a judge Feb. 8 that Garrity prevents it from fully complying with his Dec. 11 order to provide an activist with its files on officers disciplined for using 2006 World Series tickets seized from illicit scalpers.

An agitated Circuit Judge Philip Heagney said he didn't know enough about Garrity, and complained that the department did not bring it up earlier.

It's not surprising that a judge would not be experienced with Garrity, experts say, because one of its aspects is to keep information from ever getting to court.

While Garrity applies broadly to public employees, it comes into play most commonly with investigations of police, whose work tends to bring them closer to the edge of what's legal.

"It's the only way a police agency can get information from its employees," suggested Priscilla Gunn, an attorney for the St. Louis police. "Most officers called in for questions, even if they are not the target of the review, give a Garrity statement."

Police officers are acutely aware of the Miranda Rule, the result of another Supreme Court decision of the 1960s, in which the target of an investigation must be informed of the constitutional right to remain silent. Officers are not easily lulled into throwing that protection away.

But they may cooperate under Garrity, in hopes of saving their jobs. That was the effect in the World Series scandal, in which 16 officers were demoted, suspended or reprimanded but nobody was fired.

Investigators told Heagney last week that every officer's statement was taken under Garrity.

Police departments can apply the process differently.

In the World Series case, internal affairs assigned two detectives to concurrent investigations. One, focused on internal discipline, did the Garrity interviews and put together a file for administrative use. The other was barred from the Garrity material and assigned to see if there was enough other evidence to support criminal charges.

Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, who was highly critical of the officers who let their friends and family use the tickets, could examine only the latter file before announcing there was no evidence of a crime.

Said Gunn, "At least police will know when they have bad apples and can act to get rid of them. It's really in the public's best interest."

The St. Louis County Police Department, the region's second largest force, takes a different approach. It lets a criminal investigation run its course before starting an administrative review. If prosecution is pursued, there may be no need for administrative action too, they say. If there is no prosecution, internal affairs detectives resort to Garrity.

Jack Ryan, a police liability expert, said that concurrent investigations can provide more immediate results. "Sometimes these criminal investigations can take years," he said. "For the integrity of the department, you don't want a bad cop hanging around."

Ryan, co-director of Legal and Liability Risk Management Institute in Indianapolis, said there are some Garrity exceptions. For example, a statement incriminating another officer can be shared with a prosecutor, he said. But he suggested that the safest legal avenue is "always to protect those statements" unless a court orders otherwise.

Heagney, the judge in the World Series report case, had not yet decided whether Garrity interviews must be publicly disclosed under the Missouri open records law.

Police officials claim the interviews are private, as personnel records.

Neil Bruntrager, an attorney who works with the St. Louis Police Officers Association, said that even if the Garrity statements are made public and crimes are indicated, they would still be off-limits to prosecution.

He said he advises officers to invoke Garrity every time they are called into internal affairs for questions, even for what seems to be a simple review. "You never know where the line is going to be," he said. "You may not be sure what they are looking at."

Indeed, St. Louis police say virtually every internal affairs interview involves Garrity.

In the St. Louis County police, Officers Rick Eckhard said, all 120 officers interviewed about a complaint there last year were questioned under Garrity.

The process, experts agree, is usually smooth. Bruntrager said, "Garrity by its nature is very clear," leaving little room for challenge.

[error]

I'm no big fan of the Garrity rule, but I will admit it neatly protects the Fifth Amendment rights of the government bureaucrats. This is the same rule that got the Blackwater guards off - it protects government contractors too.

Personally I think a better rule would be that government bureaucrats must give up their rights while performing government work. We'd get much better "service" from them.

Beyond that, there's an assumption in this article that prosecutors will go after bad cops. For the most part they won't. I used to think that it's because they were in bed, but it's clear this Garrity rule is a significant factor.

[CJS]

Am I missing something here  ?

if a cop admits to breaking the very laws hey are paid to enforce using this garrity deal they are free from prosecution as well as being fired ?

I have read it twice ... but took my pain meds a couple hours ago and am feeling no pain , so to speak.

[TackleTheWorld]

and it all happens before any charges are filed and before any trial.  So any evidence to any crime is buried.  For example, if a bureaucrat murders his wife and children he would go to work, request to make a garrity statement and confess the whole thing.  Not only would he protected from being fired, no prosecutor would ever know any crime had happened.  He could never be charged with murder and no trial would ever take place.   Am I reading it wrong?

[Pat K]

"Jack Ryan, a police liability expert, said that concurrent investigations can provide more immediate results. "Sometimes these criminal investigations can take years," he said. "For the integrity of the department, you don't want a bad cop hanging around."

HAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[KBCraig]

if a cop admits to breaking the very laws hey are paid to enforce using this garrity deal they are free from prosecution as well as being fired ?

Non-cops have the same protection, except it's under Weingarten instead of Garrity.

Here's why: for disciplinary purposes only, an employer can compel you to make a statement about misconduct. Because you're being required to be testify against yourself, the 5th Amendment is invoked, and anything you say can't be used to prosecute you.

[TackleTheWorld]

Bull Poop
An employer can't compel you to do anything.  If you guys are such protectors of society and defenders of the oppressed then stand the frack up to your tyrannical employer and refuse to incriminate yourself.  You are supposed to be examples to the kids aren't you?  If you lose your job, you don't have to be compelled anymore, everybody wins.

[CJS]

if a cop admits to breaking the very laws hey are paid to enforce using this garrity deal they are free from prosecution as well as being fired ?

Non-cops have the same protection, except it's under Weingarten instead of Garrity.

Here's why: for disciplinary purposes only, an employer can compel you to make a statement about misconduct. Because you're being required to be testify against yourself, the 5th Amendment is invoked, and anything you say can't be used to prosecute you.

  Building on Lauren's point .. how can an employer compel you?  Cops AFAIK are allowed legal representation like anyone else right ? 

So ... outside of a court of law .. with no charges being filed an no judge or prosecutor present ... a cop  or apparently a lowly civilian .. per Weingarten .... can admit to criminal activity and keep the right not to incriminate themselves ?  Then how the hell does any confession ever stand up ?  Better yet , how do I keep my head from exploding with yet even more knowledge that the justice system is truly FUBAR ? 

BTW .. have I ever thanked you for turning me on to the law dog files ?

[Jim Johnson]

Seems way to convenient for the cops.
If a cop is caught committing a crime, all that he has to do is make a statement under one of these crap findings.  If he provides enough detail no further evidence can be found.  Any evidence he provides is not admissible in court.  Plus if he can make it embarrassing to the Department all he'll get is a paid vacation.

It's like when the Church is left to investigate it's own child molesting priests.

[KBCraig]

  Building on Lauren's point .. how can an employer compel you?

"Either you talk, or you're fired" is pretty compelling to most people.

The difference between a police internal investigation and one conducted at Bob's Corner Store, is that if Bob's employee admits to Bob that she broke the law, Bob can't arrest her. He can call the police and report it, but the confession is hearsay and has no value as evidence (unless it was recorded or the employee admitted it in writing, but even that will require corroboration).

But in the police internal investigation, by virtue of the fact that it's being conducted by police, the 5th Amendment applies. Miranda, and all that: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." You can't require someone to testify against themselves.

Garrity is not a stay-out-of-jail card. If a cop is being investigated for chronic tardiness, he can't just blurt out that he killed JFK and then be immune from the consequences. If a cop admits a crime during a Garrity interview, the investigator is required to stop and Mirandize the subject, turning it into a criminal investigation where anything said can and will be used, yadda-yadda.

I know there is a blue wall or code of silence, and I despise it. I've never seen it at work in the BOP, because the best way for an investigator to get promoted is by successfully prosecuting an employee. It's hardly a pure workplace, but we air our dirty laundry instead of covering it up.

By the way, I realized I gave bad info about Weingarten. It's not about self-incrimination, it's about an employee's right to have a representative (such as a union steward or lawyer) present when being interviewed, whenever the employee has a reasonable belief that the interview might result in discipline. Sorry about the mix-up.

BTW .. have I ever thanked you for turning me on to the law dog files ?

He's pretty hilarious. Did you see the motorized Roman chariots?

[AntonLee]

"either you talk or you're fired."  "seems compelling to me"

yeah, it sucks having millions of people as your boss.  If police officers don't like that sort of thing, they can always try washing lettuce down at Wendy's.  I hear Target is hiring too.

in other words, tough shit. . . if I worked in a kitchen I'd know better than to complain about the heat or my sweaty balls.  To make sort of rules up like this is more than inappropriate, it's criminal. 

[Russell Kanning]

i can't read most of the details of the police state
we know what happens when most cops do bad things .... more years of service, promotion, or maybe vacation

every once in a while they hurt their back carrying away those people that oppose them

[Ogre]

As long as you understand, Russell, that in their world, there is no such thing as "bad things." Well, at least not done by those with a badge. To so many of them, if its done by a person without a badge, it is bad and the person must be punished. However, if the same thing is done by a person with a badge, then its just not even considered a bad thing.

[Pat K]

Once again to remind ya.
The police run this shit,you just live here.

Training day Ending

[KBCraig]

While I agree with Carlos Miller that this particular officer should be fired, not just suspended, here's a case where arrogance cost him a 45 day suspension. The people of Akron will be safer for nine weeks.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/17/akron-cop-fighting-suspension-ends-up-with-triple-the-time/