Facts of the case: Before being questioned about the allegations, each employee was advised of the following:
1. Anything he said could be used in a state criminal proceeding against him;
2. they had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate; but
3. that if he refused to answer, he would be subject to removal from office (Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). The officers answered the questions put before them. Over their objections, some of their answers were used against them in a conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws case in which they were found guilty. Their convictions were not overturned during their appeals of being coerced because if they refused to answer the questions they could lose their positions with the police department, thus making the statements involuntary (Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the convictions based on a New Jersey forfeiture of office statute that in part states, "Any person holding or who has held any elective or appointive public office, position or employment (whether state, county or municipal), who refuses to testify upon matters relating to the office… shall, if holding elective or public office, position or employment, be removed therefrom or shall thereby forfeit his office, position or employment and any vested or future right of tenure” (Footnote 1 Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). The officers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the New Jersey forfeiture of office statute and if they were denied the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of self-incrimination and the statements being involuntary, and therefore inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The court had to weigh the following aspects of this case: 1. The choice given petitioners either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves constituted coercion; 2. Where the choice is "between the rock and the whirlpool" (Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'r, 271 U. S. 583, 271 U. S. 593), the decision to "waive" one or the other is made under duress. Conclusion: The …show more content…
The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 384 U. S. 464-465, is "likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice." “We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning, and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions” (Garrity v. New Jersey, (1967) pp 385 U. S.