By invoking the Garrity rule, the officer is invoking his or her right against self incrimination. Any statements made after invoking Garrity, may only be used for department investigation purposes and not for criminal prosecution purposes. The Garrity Rule stems from the court case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which was decided in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court. It was a traffic ticket fixing case of all things.

Officers were advised that they had to answer questions subjecting them to criminal prosecution or lose their jobs. The Court held that this was Unconstitutional.

Technically, there are two prongs under the Garrity rights. First, if an officer is compelled to answer questions as a condition of employment, the officer’s answers and the fruits of those answers may not be used against the officer in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Second, the department becomes limited as to what they may ask. Such questions must be specifically, narrowly, and directly tailored to the officer’s job.

Thus, the basic thrust of the Garrity Rights or Garrity Rule is that a department member may be compelled to give statements under threat of discipline or discharge but those statements may not be used in the criminal prosecution of the individual officer. This means that the Garrity Rule only protects a department member from criminal prosecution based upon statements he or she might make under threat of discipline or discharge.

Also, the Garrity Rule is not automatically triggered simply because questioning is taking place. The officer must announce that he or she wants the protections under Garrity. The above statement should be prepared in writing, and the officer should obtain a copy of it. If a written statement is being taken from an officer, the officer should insist that the Garrity Warning actually be typed in the statement. Consult your attorney and union delegate for the laws regarding Garrity in your state before providing any statement.