Concealing misconduct may result in a hasher penalty than might otherwise be imposed

Concealing misconduct may result in a hasher penalty than might otherwise be imposed
Application of Gonzalez, 273 AD2d 140

The lesson in the Gonzalez case is that an employee’s efforts to suppress his or her misconduct may result in a harsher penalty than might otherwise be imposed.

The Appellate Division, First Department, sustained the dismissal of New York City police officer Antonio Gonzalez after he was found guilty of wrongfully discharged his firearm and thereafter lying about the event and attempting to conceal evidence of his misconduct. Citing Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, the court said that under the circumstances, “[t]he penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness.”

In La Chance v Erickson, 522 US 262, the US Supreme Court said that federal employees being investigated for alleged employment-related misconduct who knowingly give false answers to the investigators may be given stiffer penalties than might otherwise be imposed on them for such misconduct.

The court said that “an individual may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he [or she] cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.”

As to a Fifth Amendment defense in such cases, in Brogan v United States, 522 US 398, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former union official who falsely answered a federal investigator’s questions. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not bar prosecuting an individual who answers questions falsely in contrast to his or her refusing to answer the same inquiries.