When government contractors are incentivized to uncover criminal or fraudulent conduct within their organizations and provide the evidence to the government, this raises questions such as: Is there a point at which the contractors have been sufficiently "deputized" as government-like investigators so that their employees are entitled to Garrity warnings, given that any statement made during the internal investigation may be used against them in a subsequent criminal prosecution?
Garrity is a 1967 Supreme Court decision which held that "statements obtained from public employees under threat of termination of employment were involuntary and therefore inadmissible against them in a criminal trial." Connolly and Black Decision and Order at p. 20. The Garrity rules can apply to private sector conduct "where the actions of a private employer in obtaining statements are 'fairly attributable to the government.'" Id. Citing U.S. v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 152 n.11 (2d Cir. 2008).
In the recent Connolly and Black case, the trial court concluded that...
