Page 20 - 01A_CL7_JUN18.indd

Courts applying narrow view of Garrity rights for officers
I published an article last year in this magazine warning of the likelihood that going forward, courts will apply a narrow view of Garrity rights for po-
lice officers. In the July 2017 edition, I pointed
State introduced) diagrams of the scene of the collision, which included speed limit signs. The State also introduced the video taken from Scott’s dashboard camera, which showed Scott’s approach to the intersection and the impact. Barrow es- timated Scott’s speed five seconds before the impact, two seconds before the impact and at the time of im- pact. Speeds were calculated using data from the airbag in Scott’s patrol car and the video. Barrow also testified about his interview of Scott, summarizing Scott’s state- ments to him about the incident, including the events prior to the collision. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the grand jury returned an indictment against Scott charging him with mis-
demeanor reckless driving and speeding.
Garrity protection generally refers to the government’s inability
to use a police officer’s compelled statements against them in a criminal prosecution, however there are nuances to this general rule. The Supreme Court’s holding in Garrity pertained specifical- ly to whether statements obtained under threat of removal from office could be used in subsequent criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court held that such statements were coerced, involuntarily made, and under the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, prohibited from being used in subse- quent criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, Scott filed a motion to dismiss and quash the in- dictment, alleging that because Georgia Department of Public
out:
“There is some very good language for
FOP
Legal Report
police officers with respect to Garrity rights. However, it is important to realize that much ofthislanguagestemsfromthereversedcon- viction of Oliver North in the Iran Contra affair. The court was very sympathetic to North, and its rulings highlight this fact. It is unlikely a police officer will be afforded such preference.”
Unfortunately, my prediction was spot-on. Recently, in State v. Scott, a Georgia appellate court rejected a defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment despite a violation of the defendant’s Gar- rity rights (2018 WL 1042814). On Sept. 26, 2015, Police Sergeant Scott was on duty in his patrol car when he collided with another vehicle. Two of the four people in the other car died as a result of their injuries, and the other two sustained serious injuries. On Sept. 30, 2015, Scott gave a recorded statement to GSP Sergeant Chad Barrow regarding the collision.
Thereafter, the State presented evidence before the grand jury seeking an indictment charging Scott with reckless driving and speeding. Sergeant Barrow testified, and he identified (and the
DANIEL HERBERT
20 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ JUNE 2018