What does the Garrity ruling stipulate?

The Garrity ruling is a key legal precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically addressing the protections afforded to public employees under the Fifth Amendment when they face compelled statements in the context of disciplinary investigations. The correct understanding of this ruling is that compelled administrative statements cannot be used against an individual in a criminal proceeding.

This principle protects officers and other employees from self-incrimination during internal investigations by ensuring that any statements they make while under compulsion—meaning they are required to answer questions as part of their job duties—cannot be used later as evidence in a criminal court. The ruling seeks to balance the needs of administrative investigations with the fundamental rights of individuals to avoid self-incrimination.

Other options do not accurately reflect the context of the Garrity ruling. For instance, statements made under duress being used in court would contradict the protections intended by the Garrity ruling. Similarly, the idea that officers must always waive their rights before making a statement doesn’t align with the essence of the ruling, which emphasizes that their compelled statements will have legal protections. Finally, while the ruling ensures that specific compelled statements are inadmissible in criminal cases, it does not categorically state that all incriminating statements are inadmissible, as that would overs