Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Refusal to answer questions after being given ?use immunity?

Refusal to answer questions after being given ?use immunity?
Martinez v Safir, App. Div., 1st Dept., 251 A.D.2d 62

John Martinez, a New York City probationary police officer, refused to answer question posed by a superior concerning his conduct while off-duty and outside his jurisdiction despite being given ?use immunity? with respect his answers to the question.

Individuals granted ?use immunity? cannot have their answers to the questions used against them in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Gardner v Broderick, 392 US 273 and People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326 discuss the parameters of immunity in connection with compelling a public officer or employee to answer questions concerning his or her performance of official duties.

If, however, an individual fails to answer questions truthfully where he or she has use or transactional immunity, such immunity does not prevent the fact that he or she answered falsely from being used against the individual if he or she is subsequently charged with perjury [United States v Apfelbaum, 445 US 115].

Terminated from his position because of his refusal to answer questions during the investigatory hearing being conducted by his superiors, Martinez appealed. His appeal was dismissed by Appellate Division. The court said that probationary employees may be dismissed in good faith and for any lawful reason. Clearly bad faith was not present here, in view of the fact that Martinez refused to respond to questions after being given use immunity with respect to his answers.

The Appellate Division concluded that terminating Martinez was lawful in view of the Department?s ?accountability to the public for the integrity of the police department....? This accountability, said the court, justified its inquiry into any alleged inappropriate conduct of its police officers while off-duty and outside the jurisdiction, particularly where the alleged misconduct involves criminal acts.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 07, 2010 (boomark / email).