I'm not an attorney, so I hope you'll forgive my layman-sounding response:
A Garrity warning is standard protocol ordained by a Supreme Court ruling
in a 1966 case originating in New Jersey. NJ state law required police
officers (and all public officials) either to comply with investigations or
lose their jobs and forfeit their retirement. Some officers were convicted
of a conspiracy to obstruct justice based partly on information they
provided while complying with the state law requiring their cooperation
with the investigation. The Supreme Court found that their confessions were
not voluntary, but coerced since they would have lost their jobs and
retirement benefits if they chose not to cooperate. Citing the 14th
amendment, the court overturned their conviction. For the Minneapolis CRA,
the Garrity warning is used to notify officers of an investigation with
which they are required to comply, and grants them certain immunities from
criminal prosecution based on the information they provide. Therefore, if
the officer is suspected of criminal behavior, the CRA may recommend that
the case be tried in court first before being investigated by the CRA,
since a CRA investigation must include Garrity protections for the officer
against future criminal prosecution. But there are many, many cases that
include allegations of officer misconduct that don't rise to the level of
criminal offense. Those cases generally don't make the front page of the
newspaper, but they still include policy abuses, civil rights abuses, etc.
It's those cases that the CRA is equipped to deal with.
Regarding subpoena power: Currently, the CRA doesn't have subpoena power.
As I understand it, in order for the city council to assign that power to
the CRA Minnesota state laws need to be revised to extend that authority to
the city. This requires a lobbying/legal effort at the state capitol. All
of this MAY occur down the road, but right now the city's priority was to
get the CRA up and running and handling cases. Furthermore, once we begin
operating under this redesigned process, we may find that there isn't an
overriding need for subpoena power. Already, city employees are required to
comply with CRA investigations and witness support usually is available
without subpoenas. There's a chance that subpoena power could be an
unnecessary embellishment.
Michael Weinbeck
Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority board member
Audobon Park
WizardMarks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hlink.net> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Re: Time for Mpls
Civilian Review to start doing its job!
10/27/2003 07:46
PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You can see the proposed rules here:
>
>http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20030924CRArules.asp
>
WM: I read through all the rules and have questions around two issues:
first, what is a "Garrity Warning"? It appears to be a warning to elicit
the truth from police officers, but the warning itself is not written
into the rules. Second, why is there no supoena (sp?) power in the CRA?
WizardMarks, Central
>
>________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
