Specifically, this article answers four questions relevant to a law enforcement agency's efforts to ensure officer integrity and accountability. First, does the Constitution's Due Process Clause shield officers from departmental discipline for falsely denying allegations of misconduct? Second, after being afforded "Garrity" immunity, may officers be compelled to answer work- related questions and be terminated if they remain silent or respond in less than a fully candid and honest manner? Third, may an adverse inference for purposes of imposing discipline be drawn from an officer's decision to lawfully exercise his/her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent? Fourth, may officers who exercise their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent be transferred or reassigned when that silence raises legitimate security or fitness-for-duty concerns? The article concludes that due process does not shield officers from discipline for falsely denying misconduct allegations. It also found that officers afforded "Garrity" immunity can be compelled to cooperate and be disciplined for refusing to answer or for responding in less than a fully candid manner. Further, exercising the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is not always a cost-free exercise, since departments may draw an adverse inference from an officer's silence as a factor in subsequent discipline and transfer officers when their silence creates legitimate security or fitness-for-duty concerns. 25 notes