[Job]

I recently read with astonishment that Michigan City cops were allowed to plead the 5th Amendment regarding their actions in a recent case. Even more amazing to me was that a local judge has allowed this in the past. Duh, the United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that a cop cannot plead the 5th concerning his or her conduct on the job. Gardner v. Broderick
392 U.S. 273 (1968)

If any media people read this forum, feel free to contact me for more information.

[Groucho]

I recently read with astonishment that Michigan City cops were allowed to plead the 5th Amendment regarding their actions in a recent case. Even more amazing to me was that a local judge has allowed this in the past. Duh, the United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that a cop cannot plead the 5th concerning his or her conduct on the job. Gardner v. Broderick
392 U.S. 273 (1968)

If any media people read this forum, feel free to contact me for more information.

I guess I read this differently.

Here is what is says about Gardner v. Broderick.

Gardner v. Broderick
392 U.S. 273 (1968)
Annotate this Case

Syllabus
Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968)

Gardner v. Broderick

No. 635

Argued April 30, 1968

Decided June 10, 1968

392 U.S. 273

Syllabus

Appellant, a police officer, was subpoenaed by and appeared before a grand jury which was investigating alleged bribery and corruption of police officers, and was advised that the grand jury proposed to examine him concerning the performance of his official duties. He was advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, but was asked to sign a "waiver of immunity" after being told that he would be fired if he did not sign. He refused to do so, was given an administrative hearing, and was discharged solely for his refusal, pursuant to § 1123 of the New York City Charter. The New York Supreme Court dismissed his petition for reinstatement, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Garrity v. New Jersey,385 U. S. 493, was not controlling, and distinguishing Spevack v. Klein,385 U. S. 511 (both decided after appellant's discharge).

Held: If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions directly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal. However, his dismissal solely for his refusal to waive the immunity to which he is entitled if he is required to testify despite his constitutional privilege, and the New York City Charter provision pursuant to which he was dismissed, cannot stand. Pp. 392 U. S. 276-279.

20 N.Y.2d 227, 229 N.E.2d 184, reversed

I read this to mean that the United States Constitution holds that NO Person is required to waive his rights of self incrimination. That applies even if the person is a police officer. If the policeman doesn't answer questions based on the 5th the obviously the related evidence would be inadmissable.

[Southsider2k12]

I recently read with astonishment that Michigan City cops were allowed to plead the 5th Amendment regarding their actions in a recent case. Even more amazing to me was that a local judge has allowed this in the past. Duh, the United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that a cop cannot plead the 5th concerning his or her conduct on the job. Gardner v. Broderick
392 U.S. 273 (1968)

If any media people read this forum, feel free to contact me for more information.

Honestly this whole situation, along with the similarities in the Larkin case, just angers me. We are talking about potential Federal Civil Rights violations if these allegations are true, and if police officers are pleading the 5th amendment under oath, that means at the very least they believe it is true.

We get pictures and headline stories for shoplifting and drug dealers being arrested. This incident has put a person who essentially confessed to a murder out on the street, if the reporting is accurate. And we the general public know NOTHING about what is being done to ensure that this will not happen again, not only with the MCPD, but with the LP Co prosecutors office. There should be on-going headline news, and investigative reporting... Instead, we get nothing. We have no idea what is being done to make sure that our constitutionally promised civil rights are being guarded in Michigan City and LaPorte County. That is unacceptable.

[Groucho]

Honestly this whole situation, along with the similarities in the Larkin case, just angers me. We are talking about potential Federal Civil Rights violations if these allegations are true, and if police officers are pleading the 5th amendment under oath, that means at the very least they believe it is true.

We get pictures and headline stories for shoplifting and drug dealers being arrested. This incident has put a person who essentially confessed to a murder out on the street, if the reporting is accurate. And we the general public know NOTHING about what is being done to ensure that this will not happen again, not only with the MCPD, but with the LP Co prosecutors office. There should be on-going headline news, and investigative reporting... Instead, we get nothing. We have no idea what is being done to make sure that our constitutionally promised civil rights are being guarded in Michigan City and LaPorte County. That is unacceptable.

I agree with your sentiments. I just don't know how to write it so that someone doesn't waive his constitutional rights but the law can still function. I am vaguely aware of the case you cite about the murderer on the street. That is an extreme case.

I would discipline the cop or detective who messed up so bad the guy walked.

[Southsider2k12]

I agree with your sentiments. I just don't know how to write it so that someone doesn't waive his constitutional rights but the law can still function. I am vaguely aware of the case you cite about the murderer on the street. That is an extreme case.

I would discipline the cop or detective who messed up so bad the guy walked.

The case in question is pretty much dead in the water right now. Because the officers in question took the 5th amendment, all of the evidence in question was rejected by the court. That is why the offender was put back on the street, as they had nothing to make a case with.