Departmental Investigations: A Case Study

I feel that this case was somewhat representative of what was discussed in the textbook. The forensics aspects of this case were generally different from the impression of forensics I received from reading the textbook. Despite this fact, I feel that the investigative techniques of this case were similar to what was discussed in the textbook, as well as what has been discussed during lecture.

What the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel a government employee to self-criminate themselves. What the court also ruled was, the police department had no right to terminate those individuals who decided to use their fifth amendment right (Justia, 2016). The court had asserted that “the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent. (Taylor, 2009). With this being the main concern to the court the courts decided not to reach the question on deeming the voluntariness of the statements as the only issues that was presented. Garrity v. New Jersey was based upon if the officers of his or her own free choice to admit,

The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. They had also held that persons accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. (Supreme Court)

Does the police practice of questioning individuals without notifying them of their right to a lawyer and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

In the case of Giglio versus the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the court should not uphold the negligent of a prosecutor. I strongly believe that if a police officer has been disciplined by his or her department for truthfulness his credibility should be disclosed. As a result, he should not be given the opportunity to testify as a witness in a court of law. The primary function of law enforcement is to uphold the law by not neglecting the rights of other. It is their duty as law enforcement agencies to ensure that their credibility is reliable when prosecuting a suspect. Giglio is a term often associated with the issue of law enforcement officer credibility in a court of law. The case justified that when a prosecutor fails to

* Context of interrogation is always coercive. Although police powers may be small, psychological powers are very great

The director of athletics, internal affairs oversees and manages department finances and internal operations. Their responsibilities include setting annual department goals, preparing the annual budget and budget presentation materials, monitoring department expenditures, monitoring program budgets, preparing travel reimbursements, advising staff in budget, purchasing and travel matters and assisting in contract negotiations with external vendors. Additional responsibilities include maintaining the confidentiality of donor information and coordinating post-season logistics.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”

On the issue of timeliness, the PA IEB Representative RH testified that the Appellant was issued a notice on July 20, 2017, again on August 16, 2017 based on the Appellant’s request, and then again on September 13, 2017, based upon the Appellant’s request. The PA IEB’s position is that the appeal is untimely filed as the notice was issued three times before receiving the appeal on September 25, 2017.