skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 65923 Find in a Library
Title: INTERVIEW OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES REGARDING CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS - CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PART 1
Journal: FBI LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN  Volume:49  Issue:3  Dated:(MARCH 1980)  Pages:26-31
Author(s): J R DAVIS
Corporate Author: Federal Bureau of Investigation
US Dept of Justice
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC 20535-0001
National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Publisher: https://www.fbi.gov 
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CALLED UPON TO RESPOND TO CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS ARE DEALT WITH IN THIS ARTICLE.
Abstract: THREE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ACCOMMODATE THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF BOTH GOVERNMENT AND THE EMPLOYEE. THE FIRST, CONSISTENTLY HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT, HOLDS THAT A STATEMENT GIVEN BY A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNDER AN EXPRESS THREAT OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE USED AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE IN A SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THE NEXT PRINCIPLE, WHICH, LIKE THE FIRST, AROSE FROM AN INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER, STATES THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE FIRED SOLELY FOR ASSERTING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND APPLIED BY NUMEROUS FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO INVESTIGATE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS FORFEITING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT AS A PENALTY FOR FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE OR FAILURE TO SIGN A 'WAIVER OF IMMUNITY' FORM. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS NOTED THAT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PUBLIC OFFICER MAY NEVER BE REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES. IN ADDITION, FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ANSWER HIS EMPLOYER'S WORK-RELATED INQUIRIES. THEREFORE, IF EMPLOYEES ARE ASSURED THAT THEIR ANSWERS OR INFORMATION CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THEM IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, AND THAT THEY MAY BE DISCIPLINED OR DISCHARGED FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND, THEN DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS JUSTIFIED FOR REFUSAL TO ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS. FOOTNOTES ARE GIVEN. (AOP)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Miranda rights; Police internal affairs; Police internal investigations; Police personnel; Right against self incrimination; Rights of the accused; US Supreme Court; Waiver of rights
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=65923

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.