Employee must answer questions concerning work if granted “use immunity”
Tanico v. McGuire, 80 AD2d 297
Two police officers refused to answer questions concerning their performance of official duties following their suspension without pay for alleged official misconduct.
They were subsequently served with disciplinary charges alleged misconduct and later again refused to answer “questions specifically directed and narrowly related to official duties.”
Instead the officers filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order prohibiting such questioning.
The Appellate Division ruled that “a public employee, if granted ‘use immunity’ may be narrowly and specifically questioned about his official duties and dismissed...if he refuses to answer questions properly put to him.”
Although “use immunity” would prevent the answers being used against the individual in a criminal prosecution, the court indicated “since disciplinary proceedings are not criminal actions, the employee’s statements may be used against him in those proceedings (and) an employee who refuses to answer may be discharged on that basis.”
New York City Police Department Rules authorize interrogation of police officers who are either the subject of or witnesses in an official investigation. It appears that an employee can be compelled to testify against himself in a disciplinary proceeding as “use immunity” would be provided under the 5th Amendment in any subsequent criminal prosecution.