|
All of us should be able to take this for granted: Even though law enforcement unions often are in direct competition with one another, all of them should be on the same side of issues that profoundly affect police officers. They might contest one another for the right to represent local groups, but they would never fail to represent the best interests of all officers by defending any crucial right that is being contested. Unfortunately, we cannot take either of these statements for granted. Outrageous as it sounds, one of the high-profile law enforcement unions in Michigan actually has refused to take any side at all in what has developed into a major conflict over the future of Garrity protection. There is no doubt that this fundamental right is seriously threatened. And it is sadly ironic that the legal process which raised the threat is rooted in a department whose officers are represented by the very union that has refused to take a stand. MAP believes that a refusal by any law enforcement union to actively defend the strongest possible interpretation of Garrity in the face of this legal attack is equivalent to supporting a weakened version of this vital protection. "Failing to take a staunch stand hurts not only all other law enforcement labor relations organizations, but every officer in Michigan, as well," Executive Director Fred Timpner has declared. How important is Garrity? Language from the 1967 US Supreme decision that established the standard provides much of the answer: "...policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights...statements which a law enforcement officer is compelled to make under threat of possible forfeiture of his or her job cannot subsequently be used against the officer in a criminal prosecution." Is there any obvious element of the recent local case that would explain why a police union would refuse to step forward and support this right - let alone the union that represents those oficers who are directly affected? Certainly not in our view. Following is a summary of the case in point. It began last December when three Garden City officers were involved in a shoot-out that resulted in the death of a man who, shortly before, had critically wounded another officer. Police Chief David Harvey then read Garrity warnings to the officers involved and ordered them to answer questions under that protection, so they could return to duty as soon as possible. An assistant Wayne County Prosecutor told Harvey that the three were "clear" of any wrongdoing. "Only
one law enforcement organization appears not to comprehend its responsibility.
By remaining neutral, it is treating this truly huge issue as a non-issue.
This attitude is ridiculous. A sacrosanct priority right is in jeopardy." In February, another assistant prosecutor called the chief and demanded that he hand over the Garrity statements for review. However, Harvey refused, on the grounds that the statements are privileged and cannot be released without the consent of the officers. Claiming that he can see Garrity statements "any time he wants," then-Prosecutor Michael Duggan (he has since resigned from the office to accept another job) responded by issuing a subpoena for the statements through Wayne County Circuit Court. A show cause hearing resulted in a judge's ruling that Harvey must turn over the documents or face a contempt of court citation. A stay of that order was granted for an emergency appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On Sept. 3, oral arguments were presented in The People of Michigan v. the City of Garden City and the Michigan State Police Troopers Association. The presiding judge directed Chief Harvey to surrender the Garrity documents. That is where the case stands as of the beginning of 2004. However, TImpner is among many who are certain that there's much more to come before the matter is resolved. "I firmly believe that, if it becomes necessary, this decision will be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court," he said. "Of course, the Michigan Supreme Court is the next step and the case is headed there." "An essential and basic right is at stake here and every police union in Michigan - with one glaring exception - is committed to defending the integrity of Garrity protection." The contrast between the responses of all of those organizations that have "stepped up to the plate" and the non-response of the lone union holding back is made even sharper and more striking by the courageous stand taken by Chief Harvey. Though obviously not a union representative, he has stuck to his principles and beliefs regarding the law, despite significant pressure to simply hand over the officers' statements. "He is to be commended, as is the Michigan State Police Troopers Association, for their direct defense of Garrity," Timpner said. "The Troopers Association, like MAP, is a member unit of the Michigan Association of Police Organizations (MAPO). All of us are doing everything we can, both individually and collectively, to meet this challenge. For example, we have met with the Governor and have been assured of her support on this issue. Also, our legislative liaison firm, Karoub Associates, continues to pursue the goal of legislation that will bolster and clarify Garrity. "However, there really isn't anything extraordinary about this response. It's our duty as representatives of police officers. It's a major aspect of what we're all about." This was recognized by the Michigan Court of Appeals in its September ruling. In rendering his decision, the judge stated that it is up to unions - not administrators (Chief Harvey, in this case) or cities - to protect Garrity rights. "Only one law enforcement organization appears not to comprehend its responsibility," Timpner said. "By remaining neutral, it is treating this truly huge issue as a non-issue. This attitude is ridiculous. A sacrosanct priority right is in jeopardy." Timpner addressed the topic of competition among police unions as related to the welfare of all law enforcement personnel. "Sure we compete, but we do so in trying to be the very best and most comprehensive in fulfilling a common mission on behalf of our respective members," he declared. "We compete, but we are on the same side; seeking to accomplish what is best for police officers. At least we are supposed to be on the same side." The Michigan Association of Police recommends that any officer who becomes involved in a dispute regarding Garrity statements consult with an attorney who is an expert in the field. M. Catherine Farrell and Daniel Hoekenga are MAP's general legal counsel.
|
|