Always note that state law may be more restrictive on police power than the U.S. Constitution.
|
There is no requirement that agencies provide a warning under Garrity v. New Jerseyi on applications for government employment. In Garrity, the United States Supreme Court stated the following:
The choice imposed on petitioners was one between self-incrimination or job forfeiture... The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.ii [emphasis added]
Thus, the Garrity ruling protects employees from having statements they are required to make, under the penalty of termination of employment if they refuse to make a statement, used against them in a criminal prosecution.
|
|
Garrity does not address prospective employees or job applicants. They have nothing to lose (because they are not yet employees) if they refuse to disclose certain facts on a job application. They can choose to not answer the questions and seek other employment.
Note that a state could pass a law that effectively requires prospective government employee to be granted “Garrity like” protections, but Georgia has not done so.
CITATIONS:
