shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
The issue before the Court in Chavez seemed relatively simple: does the taking of a statement without required Miranda warnings constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination if it is never used in a criminal case?
Accordingly, the court held that the institutions were not legally bound and could not be compelled
to sell their stock warrants to NMG or WCP, at the time of the assignments.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit reviewed a case where a Florida deputy sheriff was fired after refusing to answer questions at an administrative hearing where he had been advised that he was not being compelled to answer any questions.
Federal employees who were suspected of misconduct were compelled upon threat of job loss to answer questions concerning the misconduct.
441 (1972) where the Supreme Court ruled that governmental entities may compel a public employee to answer questions upon pain of job loss as long as the compelled statement cannot be used during criminal proceedings against the person who made it.
no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
In her article "Compelled Interviews of Public Employees," which appeared in the May 1993 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Kimberly Crawford comprehensively explains Garrity immunity and the circumstances when public employees can be compelled to answer work-related questions.
forcing a public employee to answer potentially incriminating job-related questions does not implicate the Fifth Amendment unless the employee is also compelled to waive his privilege.
7) Rather, the warnings are a protective measure designed to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
Dupnik,(19) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that intentional violations of Miranda may result in law enforcement officers' being held personally liable for depriving individuals of either their Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination or the constitutional guarantee of due process.
According to the court, the result of this psychological gamesmanship was that Cooper was compelled to make statements to the interrogators.
That is, employees may be compelled to answer questions related to their employment or face dismissal if, by doing so, they are not being compelled to incriminate themselves.
Transactional immunity, however, goes much further and exempts employees from prosecution for matters discussed during a compelled interview.
Neither use nor transactional immunity makes interviews any less compelled or employees' statements any more voluntary, but immunity does assure employees that their statements cannot be used to convict them.