Rights of Police Officers During Internal Investigations: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, March 19, 1992
United States, United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993 - Government publications - 357 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action administrative afforded alleged answer apply Association believe bill of rights California Chairman charges Chief Chiefs of Police citizens civil collective bargaining committee compelled complaint concerning conduct Cong CONGRESS CONGRESS THE LIBRARY constitutional counsel County court crime criminal decision discipline dismissal due process duty effect employees evidence fact federal fifth amendment Gardner Garrity grant hearing holding House immunity individual internal interrogation investigation issue Justice law enforcement agency law enforcement officer legislation matter Mayor ment Michigan municipal North notice officer's Officers Bill P.O. Box person personnel Police Department police officers present President prior privilege procedures proceeding proposed protections punishment questions reasonable record refused Representatives response result Review rules SCHUMER self-incrimination serve Sheriff statement statute Street testimony Thank tion Town United violation Washington witnesses
Page 287 - The Fourteenth Amendment secures against state invasion the same privilege that the Fifth Amendment guarantees against federal infringement — the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty, as held in Twining, for such silence.
Page 284 - The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.
Page 288 - ... upon the ground that his answer may tend to incriminate him or compel him to be a witness against himself or refuses to waive immunity when called by a grand jury to testify thereon or who willfully refuses or fails to appear before any court, commission or body of this state which has the right to inquire under oath upon matters relating to the office, position or employment of...
Page 280 - A brief consideration of the reasons which gave rise to the adoption of the fifth amendment, of the wrongs which it was intended to prevent and of the safeguards which it was its purpose unalterably to secure, will make it clear that the generic language of the amendment was but a crystallization of the doctrine as to confessions, well settled when the amendment was adopted, and since expressed In the text-writers and expounded by the adjudications, and hence that the statements on the subject by...
Page 288 - The current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation's most cherished principles — that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.
Page 292 - ... specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State.
Page 300 - If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself. Garrity v. State of New Jersey, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.
Page 280 - So deeply did the inequities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment.
Page 284 - There is nothing startling in the conception that a public servant's right to retain his office or employment should depend upon his willingness to forego his constitutional rights and privileges to the extent that the exercise of such rights and privileges may be inconsistent with the performance of the duties of his office or employment. One of the most cherished rights guaranteed by the constitution is that of freedom of speech, yet no one would maintain that a police officer could fully exercise...