James Lingler and Jeffrey Gezymalla v. John R. Fechko

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a police officer’s Fifth Amendment right was not violated because he had not been compelled to waive his privilege against self-incrimination and his statements were never used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings
• holding that it was not a constitutional violation for a police chief to exact statements from police officers concerning their employment when they were not required to waive their privilege against self-incrimination and the statements were not used against them in a criminal proceeding
• explaining that the law does not support the contention that “a waiver of the privilege is implicit in any statement given by a public employee under threat of disciplinary action” and that under Garrity, “any such waiver would have been ineffective”
• explaining that the law does not support the contention that “a waiver of the privilege is implicit in any statement given by a public employee under threat of disciplinary action” and that under Garrity, “any such waiver would have been ineffective”
• finding no Fifth Amendment violation sufficient to sustain a § 1983 action where police officer-employees who had made incriminating statements in compulsory interviews with superiors were never prosecuted
• finding no Fifth Amendment violation sufficient to sustain a Section 1983 action where police officer-employees who had made incriminating statements in compulsory interviews with superiors were never prosecuted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).