Garrity v. New Jersey (1966)
- Docket
- 13
- Decided
- 1966-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Does the threat of loss of employment constitute coercion that violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: Yes. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the threat of the loss of employment placed the interviewee in the bind of being forced to choose between self-incrimination and the loss of livelihood. In such a situation, there is no chance for the interviewee to reach a free and rational decision. The Court also held that policemen and other public servants are entitled to the same constitutional rights as other citizens, and that there was precedent to establish threat of a loss of employment as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there should not be an inflexible rule regarding coercion, but rather that each case should be decided based on its individual facts. He argued that the government had a valid interest in ensuring the integrity of its police officers and other public servants, and that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the state from discharging an employee who refuses to answer questions regarding his job performance and conditions for future employment. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John M. Harlan wrote that there was no evidence that the admissions were involuntary, given the fact that all the officers were informed of their rights and had counsel present at their interviews. There is no reason to suspect that they were subject to mental coercion based on any of the techniques that were present in previous coercion cases. He also argued that the statements were admissible as a matter of law because it is constitutionally permissible for a state to establish reasonable qualifications and standards of conduct for its employees. There was no constitutional reason for an employer to be unable to expect an employee to provide information pertinent to his employment. Justice Tom C. Clark and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.