Criminal Law Case Study Critique

Introduction

The rule of Garrity is used in cases where officers make incriminating statements out fear that they might lose their job. The investigating officer has the responsibility of explaining to the subject that any compelled statements cannot be used in later persecution against them, but can only be used for administrative purposes. The investigation should pertain only to the officer's duties (Aitchison, 2004). Should the officer refuse to comply or give a statement as required, he or she is liable to punishment. False statements will also qualify the officer for criminal charges.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the case of McKinley vs. the City of Mansfield, there are several facts. The first fact is the use of police scanners in eavesdropping on cordless phones and cell phones, which is improper. This is what led to an internal administrative investigation in which several police officers were questioned in line with the claims of improper use of police scanners. As required by law, officers were questioned under Garrity warnings. One of these officers was Officer McKinley. During the first interview, Officer McKinley was alleged to have provided false information. This led to him being interviewed for a second time, still under Garrity warnings.

During the second interview, it became clear that McKinley had provided false information in the first interview as he gave contradicting statements and information. He even admitted himself to providing false statements before. After completion of the investigation, the investigators handed over the gathered information to the prosecutor. Officer McKinley was terminated based on the findings of the investigation.

He was also charged with falsification and obstruction of official business and was convicted. However, the conviction was vacated by the appellate court that determined that the statements were inadmissible. They had been made based on the agreement that they would not be used in persecution against him. McKinley also filed a lawsuit based on the allegation that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated (McGuinness, 2008). In line with this, the appellate court determined that since the first interview had been conducted under Garrity warnings, the statements made could not be used in prosecution. However, these compelled statements could be used in the prosecution of false statements and obstruction of official business. The second interview, although targeting criminal investigation, was still compelled under Garrity, hence could not be used in a prosecution against McKinley. The investigator's actions thus did not entitle them to immunity (Daigle, 2012).

Decisions

As a result of the internal administrative investigation, the decision that Officer McKinley be terminated was made. I believe that this decision was appropriate since the Officer himself admitted to making false statements, and this was tantamount to obstruction of official business. However, the mistake made during the second interview was compelling the officer's statement under Garrity while targeting a criminal investigation. This means that the statements could not be admissible in court.

The second decision made was that by the prosecutor to use the compelled statements from the second interview in court. This was the wrong decision based on the fact that the statements were compelled under Garrity, rendering them inadmissible in court as determined by the appellate court. While the statements made during the first interview qualified Officer McKinley to be prosecuted for obstruction of official business and falsification of statements, the second interview statements were compelled under Garrity.

The third decision made was that by the appellate court to vacate the conviction of Officer McKinley by the trial court. I believe that this was the right decision based on the principle of Garrity. The officer made the statements after the department's agreement that they would not be used in any prosecution against the officer, yet the same statements were what had been used to convict him. His Fifth Amendment rights had indeed been violated (McGuinness, 2008). The appellate court also decided that the investigating officers' actions did not qualify them for immunity. They had acted with full awareness of the Garrity principle they had applied in the second interview; hence they should be held accountable for their actions or oversight.

Alternative Solution

The decisions made in this case were in most parts appropriate to the case at hand. Another solution to such a case would have been to try to find appropriate retribution for the officer after the conclusion of the court trial. A similar case was State vs. Jackson in which the rule of Garrity appeared to have been applied lawfully. The prosecution uses Mr. Jackson's statement but that of an undisclosed witness. However, since the prosecution had been furnished with a compelling interview report, the Garrity rule had been violated (Whitman, 2010).

Conclusion

Garrity rules are essential since they ensure that coerced or compelled statements cannot be used to prosecute officers later on. The best way to handle investigations is to allow criminal proceedings to come to an end and then carry out internal investigations. If an officer was found to have given false statements, punishment could then be meted out; but on an entirely internal level.

References

Abrams, H. E. (1981). Systemic Coercion: Unconstitutional Conditions in the Criminal Law. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 72, 128.

Aitchison, W. (2004). The rights of law enforcement officers. Labor Relations Information System.

Eric P. Daigle. (2012) "Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question," Chief's Counsel, The Police Chief 79: 12-13.

McConville, M., Sanders, A., & Leng, R. (2017). Routledge Revivals: Case for the Prosecution (1991): Police Suspects and the Construction of Criminality. Routledge.

McGuinness, J. M. (2008). Fifth Amendment Protection for Public Employees: Garrity and Limited Constitutional Protections from Use of Employer Coerced Statements in Internal Investigations and Practical Considerations. Touro L. Rev., 24, 697.

Pound, R. (2018). Criminal justice in America. Routledge.

Riccucci, N. M. (2017). Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges. Routledge.

Kim, K. (2015). Beyond Coercion. UCLA L. Rev., 62, 1558.

Whitman, Mather D. (2010). What's The Use?. Retrieved from http://www.fishelhass.com/documents/contentdocuments/document_23_5_54.pdf

Walsh, W. F., & Vito, G. F. (2018). Police Leadership and Administration: A 21st-Century Strategic Approach. Routledge.