Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question Essay

      Garrity warnings are applicable during intimate investigations which are being carried against truth enforcement officers to ascertain allegations which save been laid against the officers. Under the Garrity Warning formula, the instructions or testimonials by officers which are do during the investigations cannot be manipulationd against the officers in fountain there are evil trials that have been shake upd against the officer. There have been different cases where the principle of Garrity has been employ to image whether officers are guilty of crimes or not guilty. One of the cases where the Garrity principle was app be is the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005). In this case, there are various facts, and decisions which were do as followsFacts       McKinley was a constabulary officer when the police de berthment conducted an internal investigation on its administration for all the officers (Eric, celestial l atitude 2012). All officers were adorn through an interview whereby they were all downstairs the Garrity principle that said that their statement would not be used for the purpose of pursuit (Eric, declination 2012). McKinley lie during the first interview. This prompted the investigator to conduct a jiffy interview with McKinley, only after informing him of the allegations against him and also about the Garrity warning principle. McKinley admitted to have lied in the first interview and this brought about the case against him of lying (Eric, celestial latitude 2012).         McKinley was informed by the investigating officer that he was being interviewed for the second time following allegations that he had provided untruthful answers during the first interview that was conducted (Eric, declination 2012). Upon the completion of the second interview, the investigating officer turned in the statements do by McKinley as salubrious as the findings that had been made during the two interviews to the quest for the purpose of prosecuting McKinley. Based on the findings of the investigation, McKinley was terminated but later reinstated to his fountain position with a back pay as well as benefits found on the collective bargain that was reached down the stairs arbitration (Eric, December 2012). Finally, McKinley was charged in court with falsification of information as well as obstruction of the official operations and business of the police plane section. ending        When McKinley was charged in court, and made a motion to suppress the statements that he had made from being bused against him in the court of law. The judges declined the request and allowed the use of these statements. Based on the investigation findings and the statements which had been made by McKinley, he was convicted of the crimes brought against him (Eric, December 2012). The appellate court vacated the convictions against McKinley based on the view that the department knew that the statements by McKinley were based on the principle of Garrity hence inadmissible. The resulting put to death was that McKinley decided to instigate charges against the City of Mansfield as well as the investigating officers and certain police officials within the department (Eric, December 2012). The trial court granted a summary judgment to the defendants but the appellate court reversed part of the decision by the trial court. However, it was held that McKinley was still liable to charges against him based on the findings of the first interview.        From the case of McKinley, it is my belief that best practices were necessary in decision making this case so that there is fairness in the application of the law (Eric, December 2012). It was appropriate that the best practices were exercised in this case since there is rent to uphold the law and ensure that the right of every officer is saved as well as that of the departme nt of police.Alternative        From the above case of McKinley, it there is no alternative that would have been applicable in this case. The prosecution did not have the right to use the statements that the officer had made under the Garrity principle (Eric, December 2012). Furthermore, the investigating officer was wrong in victimisation the second statement as part of the evidence against McKinley for the purpose of prosecuting him even so the statements were made under the Garrity warnings. The officer was right in taking action against the investigating officer as well as some of the officials in the department hence there are no alternative actions that he was supposed to take after what had transpired (Eric, December 2012). The department also did a right thing in taking him to court, but only based on the first statement from the first interview that he had to lies.root         The solution to the case between McKinley and the police dep artment can be reached through an arbitration process whereby the parties can reach a cat valium agreement. Arbitration will help retain the reputation of the department period ensuring that all the parties involved in the matter are satisfied.Conclusion       The Garrity warnings principle is an important aspect in the operations of the police department as it helps in protecting the officers. Furthermore, this principle should not be misused by the officers as a way to continue doing things which are against the law. The police department should also be very keen in the way it deals with officers under the Garrity principle.ReferenceEric P. Daigle, Garrity Warnings To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question, Chiefs Counsel, The legal philosophy Chief 79 (December 2012) 1213.Source document