tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38752602859679553.post3772388350204373734..comments2023-05-25T10:23:55.366-04:00Comments on Attorney Carilyn Ibsen's Blog: Miranda Rights- The Garrity Exception For Police OfficersCarilyn Ibsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05609984888379211315noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38752602859679553.post-6475067845078557592010-08-04T07:01:49.062-04:002010-08-04T07:01:49.062-04:00Thank you for the information and your perspective...Thank you for the information and your perspective.Carilyn Ibsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05609984888379211315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38752602859679553.post-6352857008321365542010-08-04T03:19:16.320-04:002010-08-04T03:19:16.320-04:00The answers to your questions should be obvious. ...The answers to your questions should be obvious. The Garrity warning is not an attempt to in any way let cops off easier than non-cop citizens who are suspected of committing a crime. Cops may be compelled to answer questions in an administrative investigation; i.e. a cop cannot refuse to answer such questions posed by his superior officers, on penalty of termination. However, cops have the SAME rights as any other citizen to not incriminate themselves. Thus, cops cannot be COMPELLED to answer questions which would cause them to be held criminally liable. The mechanism to accomplish both of these things, that is compelling cops to answer questions while at the same time protecting their rights against self-incrimination, is the Garrity ruling and warning, which provides that COMPELLED answers cannot be used in a criminal prosection, but only in administrative proceedings, i.e. punishment up to and including termination. Posted by a 33-year cop; about 1/3 of those years my assignment included conducting internal investigations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com