Page 22 - July 2017 Newsletter

HERBERT CONTINUED FROM PAGE 21
tended purpose of the questioning is. The officer should seek a written statement from the interrogating official identifying the nature and purpose of the inquiry. If the agency refuses to define the purpose of the inquiry, or does not explain the Garrity protections, or if there is confusion, then the officer should write that fact into his statement and attempt to self-invoke Garrity protection.
An example of what some officers around the country do to protect themselves is provided by The American Crimi- nal Law Journal:
“Officers must be trained to protect themselves by incor- porating a protective Garrity assertion before giving any statements in connection with an investigation into his or her conduct by agencies that do not use a written Garrity rights form. Wherever possible, officers should ‘Garrityize’ themselves. Some associations and unions provide a ‘Gar- rity’ card. Each officer should keep a copy of such a protec- tive statement with them at all times.”
The following is a suggested statement that officers use in preparing a statement or issuing a report in response to a request from their employing agency. This will enable of- ficers to “Garrityize” themselves.
On [date], [time], at [place], I was ordered to submit this report [or give this statement] by [name and rank]. Consequently, I submit this report [give the statement] involuntarily and only because of that order as a con- dition of continued employment. In view of likely job forfeiture or termination of employment if I refuse to
cooperate and provide this statement, I have no alter- native but to abide by this order and I am submitting this statement [report] involuntarily. It is my belief and understanding that the department requires this report [statement] solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not release it to any other agency or authori- ty. It is my further belief and understanding that this report [statement] will not be released to or provided to any subsequent proceeding other than disciplinary proceedings within my employing department itself. For any and all purposes, I hereby specifically reserve my constitutional rights to remain silent under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con- stitution and under all other rights provided by law. Fur- ther, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded to me under the doctrines set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey, Spevack v. Klein, Gardener v. Broderick, and other cas- es, should this report [statement] be used for any other purpose.
As the above cases show, there is some very good lan- guage for police officers with respect to Garrity rights. However, it is important to realize that much of this lan- guage stems from the reversed conviction of Oliver North in the Iran-Contra affair. The Court was very sympathetic to North, and its rulings highlight this fact. It is unlikely that a police officer will be afforded such preference. This area of law will undoubtedly be reviewed, and the most likely effect will be the watering-down of Garrity rights. Officers should recognize this and do everything in their power to protect their rights. d
22 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ JULY 2017