GARRITY RULE
| Powered by Practical Web Works www.practicalwebworks.com |
THE GARRITY RULE
Officer Doe, please report to internal affairs to provide the I.A. investigator with a statement regarding an
incident. Every experienced police officer has faced the unsettling prospect of being interviewed as part of an
internal affairs investigation. It is impossible to work for long in the current police environment without being
called into the department to give a statement to Internal Affairs-- whether the request is well founded or not;
whether it was generated by a citizen complaint, an incident on the street or the police administration; or
whether it is directed to the individual officer, other officers, or at unidentified people.
In most departments, three principles appear well settled: an officer can be ordered to participate in such an
investigation; he or she can be required to give a statement, oral or written, at times recorded, transcribed and
sworn; and whatever statements are made can be used against the officer in later disciplinary hearings and
civil lawsuits.
The Garrity Rule or Garrity Warning is a protection that is utilized by many law enforcement officers each
year. Simply put, Garrity is a statement that should be made by an officer who is being questioned during a
departmental disciplinary proceeding or internal affairs investigation. The Garrity Rule prohibits the officer’s
statement(s) from being used against him or her in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Remember, the
statement(s) can be used against an officer in subsequent disciplinary proceedings and civil lawsuits.
The Garrity Rule stems from a United States Supreme Court Case, Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493
(1967). In Garrity, allegations were made that police officers were fixing tickets. During the investigation,
the officers were advised that they had to answer questions, which subjected them to criminal prosecution, or
be terminated. Thereafter, the statements given by the officers were used to convict them on criminal charges.
The United States Supreme Court held that this was unconstitutional, citing the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and reversed the convictions because the officers had been compelled to give the
statements with the threat of discipline looming over their heads.
As a result, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the officer has the
right, as does any citizen, to remain silent if he or she faces possible criminal prosecution and is protected
from self-incrimination under the doctrines set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey.
However, an officer is required to follow departmental rules and regulations and provide statements pursuant
to an order of a superior or face disciplinary action up to and including termination.
In essence, Garrity comes into play when an officer is actually being compelled (ordered) under threat of
departmental discipline to make a statement. If an officer is compelled to give statements under threat of
discipline, up to and including termination for failure to provide a statement(s), the statement(s) may not be
used in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the individual officer.
Basically, the Garrity Rule only protects an officer from criminal prosecution based upon statements he or she
might make under threat of discipline or termination. It is also important to understand that the officer must
announce that he or she wants the protections afforded to them under Garrity because Internal Affairs is not
obligated to inform you of your Garrity rights.
Furthermore, Garrity is not automatically triggered simply because questioning is taking place. If an officer
makes a statement to an investigator(s) when he or she is not compelled to do so, Garrity will not apply.
Therefore, if an officer is asked a question, formally or informally, that could lead to criminal charges being
filed against the officer, do not simply answer the question without determining whether the officer is being
ordered to answer the question under the threat of discipline or termination.
Furthermore, if an officer is invited to internal affairs, be prepared. This process starts at the inception of the
invitation. An officer should acquire and develop as much information about the incident before attending.
Information such as the name of the complainant, the allegation, where and when did the incident occur,
witnesses present, officers involved and copies of the reports, if possible. The key is to be prepared. An
officer will be able to give a much more informative interview if he or she is able to review their reports and
refresh their memory prior to the interview. This should serve as a beneficial tool to both the officer and the
investigator.
Remember, it is always advantageous to be safe rather than sorry. Police officers have constitutional rights
just as ordinary citizens do. Courts have carved out these protections with such holdings as Garrity v. New
Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Don’t be bashful are embarrassed by asserting these very important
protections. The protections are available; utilize them.
The statement below should be prepared in writing, and the officer should obtain a copy of it. If a written
statement is being taken from an officer, the officer should insist that the Garrity Rule actually be typed in the
statement. If not, an officer should recite the statement when giving a taped interview and/or write it on all
statements they sign.
THE GARRITY STATEMENT
On ___________(date)_____________(time) at _______________(location), I,
____________________________(name), was ordered to submit this report by
____________________________(name and rank). I submit this report at his order as a condition of my
employment. In view of possible job forfeiture, I have no alternative but to abide by this order.
It is my belief and understanding that the department requires this report solely and exclusively for internal
purposes and will not release it to any other agency. It is further my belief that this report will not and cannot
be used against me in any subsequent proceedings.
I retain the right to amend or change this statement upon reflection to correct any unintended mistake without
subjecting myself to a charge of untruthfulness.
For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth and
Fourteenth amendments to the U. S. Constitution and any other rights prescribed by law. Further, I rely
specifically upon the protection afforded me under the doctrines set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S.
493 (1967) and Spevack v. Klien, 385 U. S. 551 (1956), should this report be used for any other purpose of
whatsoever kind or description.
Finally, you may want to add the following statement at the conclusion of the interview or statement. I have
answered every question honestly and to the best of my ability. If at any time during this investigation, it
appears that any of my answers are seemingly in conflict with the facts of the case, please provide me with the
opportunity to address those issues.
_________________________
Some of the information contained herein was obtained from the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association, Tucson FOP,
Greensboro Police Officers’ Association, NJLawman.com and an article written by Mike Leibig.
Some of the information contained herein was obtained from the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association, Tucson FOP,
Greensboro Police Officers’ Association, NJLawman.com and an article written by Mike Leibig.