...appellant's discharge). Held: If appellant, a policeman, had refused to. answer questions directly relating to the performance of his official duties,...thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal. However,...

...The following comment of Justice Fortas in Gardner also seems to be in accord with this analysis : "If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer...thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity v. State of New Jersey, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination icould not have been a oar to...

...The following comment of Justice Fortas in Gardner also seems to be in accord with this analysis : "If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer...in a crimina,l prosecution of himself, Garrity v. State of New Jerscii. supra, the privilege against self-tncrimination trould not have teen a tar to...

...The following comment of Justice Fortas in Gardner also seems to be in accord with this analysis : If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions...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...

...that "the policeman is either responsible to the State or to no one."4" Accordingly, the Court stated: If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions...fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.4* It should be...

...fifth amendment rights). The Court in Gardner, however, noted that if the policeman had not been asked to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof and he nevertheless had persisted in refusing "to answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly...

...rights). The Court irdner, however, noted that if the policeman had not been asked to waive his imty with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof and he nevertheless icrsisted in refusing "to answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly...

...for their refusal to cooperate. In Gardner, the Supreme Court made this point clear when it stated: "If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer...fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal." (19) The key...