Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on June 28, 2005, to prohibit the release to a third party of certain statements made by a police officer to his or her employer about official duty actions, unless the officer gives written consent for the release. This refers to so-called "Garrity statements" (referencing a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case), which are statements made under threat of discharge. Due to the their coercive nature these statements may not be used in a criminal case against an office without violating his or her Fifth Amendment protection from self incrimination

The vote was 30 in favor, 7 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 766 at Senate Journal 91)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.647 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Brater's statement is as follows: This is a bill that allows statements that police officers make at administrative hearings to remain secret. I have some concerns about this bill because police officers have powers that ordinary citizens do not have in their ability to discharge their firearms, to make arrests, impound vehicles, and a whole array of powers that they can lawfully exercise. I think it's very important in a free society with a democratic society such as we operate in that there be adequate accountability and ability of citizens to know what is going on in the police force that is protecting them. I think it's important, when we have a bill of this nature, that we take time to review all of its ramifications. Unfortunately, although this bill has been around in various iterations for some time, it is being taken up and passed rather rapidly in the lame duck session. I think there are some problems with the bill that have not been resolved. Therefore, I can't support it at this time.

I agree with that statemet.The police and their secret brotherhood don't need a law to allow them to hide the truth and lie.

a matter of public record. it should stay that way.

This is a bad bill that proposes to cloak information about the operation of government (police) agencies from public scrutiny. It should be voted down by te House.

brought up in the first place concerns me greatly. police departments need to have the most transparency and the most control in order to be trusted by the people. a police department with "secrets" soon becomes the "secret police". and don't believe that the 4th amendment will save you from what will happen if police departments are given 'free reign'. the 2nd amendment didn't stop them from confiscating legally owned weapons in louisiana during katrina. by the way, none of those people ever got their weapons back, nor were they paid a dime for them. the constitution didn't stop that either.

This bill does not mean they cannot be prosecuted if committing a crime. Garrity means you are required to give a statement or you will lose your job. This still applies. If we applied this to all (non-police officers also), how long would that last? Police officers have rights, garrity itself goes one step beyond common citizens, this new legislation just prohibits the compelled testimony from being leaked out.