Weingarten And Garrity Rights

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

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

Alito, delivered the final vote of 5-4, majority vote at expense for the case of Salinas V. Texas on June 17, 2013. The SCOTUS decided that Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination are not reprehensible to defendants who chose to only remain mute during questioning, or a portion of questioning. SCOTUS states, “Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim this protection” (Justice Alito, Oyez). The SCOTUS later goes on to say, “the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves” (Justice Kennedy, Oyez). Therefore, If police officers read Salinas his rights at any point during conviction, questioning, or trial, there was no constitutional

Garrity is designed to inform the accused of their Constitutional Rights, and helps protect the accused against coercive tactics by the government. However, under Garrity, the accused’s silence could be used as evidence against him/her in administrative proceedings should the accused not answer questions. Furthermore, Garrity helps ensure the accused is not put in a coercive situation, and details the possible actions that could be taken by the employer as a result of not responding to questions.

The intense environment can be seen as a threat to an individual’s protection against self-incrimination. The standard proceedings for an interrogation are typically meant to elicit a confession to some degree. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation from 1956 outlines the classic interrogation method. It states that “the subject should be deprived of every psychological advantage” and the investigator “must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). These instructions make it an unfair circumstance for the accused. If investigators are trained to undermine and manipulate people into giving confessions, then no statement made during an interrogation is without coercion or some form of outside opinion. In Miranda v Arizona, Miranda’s lawyer argued that his client underwent this type of interrogation and therefore, the court could not use his confession. In such an intimidating atmosphere, Ernesto Miranda thought he had no choice but to answer questions that would incriminate him. He also was unaware that he could speak with an attorney to help protect him and his rights. The court rulings and instating of the Miranda Rights helped to make sure that this scenario would not happen again. The Miranda Rights, or Miranda Warning, outlines the rights

In Tides v. Boeing Co., Matthew Neumann and Nicholas Tides were employed by the company’s SOX audit group. The employees allege that they were pressured by supervisors to provide reports giving favorable reviews to internal controls despite their concerns that said controls were vulnerable to manipulation by unauthorized users. Notwithstanding a published company policy prohibiting employees from speaking to the press, both employees provided information about what occurred to a newspaper reporter who incorporated the information in a published article. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs could not avail themselves to retaliation remedies in the SOX because “[l]eaks to the media are not protected.” The court articulated that SOX

It is the right of every citizen, not to be forced to talk to law enforcement officers or the courts, if it self incriminates the person that is being questioned. At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify.[7] Basically, what this means is that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand if he or she is not willing to do so to begin with. On the other hand, if a defendant does choose to testify he or she cannot pick and choose the question that they would like to answer. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the

The next right that will be discussed is the right to a fair trial by jury, this right entails four different amendments (Candela Open Courses, n.d.(b)). The amendments that this pertains to are the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 8th. The fourth amendment is the right of a person to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The searches and seizures can be done if there is a probable cause. Over the years, the courts have interpreted the amendment to allow police to search the following: person arrested, items in plain sight, property where there could be an immediate danger to anyone, and things that are in the arrested persons reach or touch. The fifth amendment requires that citizens can’t be accused of a serious crime without a grand jury investigation (Candela Open Courses, n.d.(b)). This also forbids double jeopardy, meaning that a person can’t be tried for the same crime for a second time. The fifth amendment protects a person from testifying against himself or herself in a trial. This amendment also enacted the “Miranda Rights”, that a person has the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment is

Our court system has imposed a few restrictions as to what LEOs can do to gain incriminating type statements from criminal suspects without violating their rights. Our Sixth Amendment has restrictions in place that holds officers responsible for how they obtain confessions from suspects. One example of that is the case of “Massiah v. United States (1964), where the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel in all formal criminal proceedings was violated when the government agents deliberately elicits incriminating responses from a person” (“Interrogations and Confessions”, n.d., p.

It is my belief that police should be allowed to freely contact defendants and it is the defendant’s responsibility to invoke their rights to remain silent and rights to counsel on a case by case basis. This paper will explain the difference between a persons Mirandized counsel rights versus their sixth amendment counsel rights, different Supreme Court cases over the years that have demonstrated the court’s position on suspects being questioned by police, and how these decisions are affecting the world of law enforcement today.

The idea of employee rights involves many complex issues. An employee’s right to a workplace free of discrimination and harmful environmental factors is obvious. Yet, other issues surrounding privacy, personal expression, and communication monitoring are not

The self-incrimination privilege recognizes the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution by protecting witnesses from being coerced into incriminating themselves. Under this privilege, a witness is allowed to plead the Fifth by refusing to respond to questions if the response could be self incriminatory. This privilege is founded on the aspect of torture, which was used to extract information

If you were a suspect being questioned in a police station, which of your rights would you exercise and which would you waive? Which of your rights would you regard as the most important? Why? For many suspects the process of questioning in a police station is very stressful with 60%[1] confessing or making damaging admissions.

This report reviews and analyzes individual rights afforded by the constitution and their applicability to the suit for wrongful termination in the case of Korb versus Raytheon. The specific constitutional rights under review are the freedom of speech, freedom of information and challenges associated with employment law. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current employee of Raytheon, a large equipment manufacturing company for the U.S. military was terminated after making public statements criticizing defense spending and calling for a reduction of Navy’s fleet. Raytheon, a manufacturer of