Brief Fact Summary. A group of police officers were investigated by the state attorney general for fixing traffic tickets. They were asked various questions and were not given immunity. Some of there answers were used in subsequent conspiracy prosecutions.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[T]he protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.”
Subtle pressures may be as telling as coarse and vulgar ones.
View Full Point of LawIssue. “[W]hether a State, contrary to the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, can use the threat of discharge to secure incriminatory evidence against an employee[?]”
Held. No. “We conclude that policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights.” “[T]he protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.” “The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in [Miranda v. Arizona], is ‘likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.’ ” We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained
as voluntary under our prior decisions.”
“Where the choice is ‘between the rock and the whirlpool,’ duress is inherent in deciding to ‘waive’ one or the other.” “In these cases.