Labor & Employment Law

Marital privilege against self-incrimination not available in administrative disciplinary actions taken against law enforcement personnel

Astrid Megan Reynolds served as a deputy sheriff with the Riverside County [California] Sheriff?s Department. She was served with disciplinary charges alleging that she failed to inform her superiors that her husband admitted to her that he had stolen and used metamphetamine [generally referred to as ?speed?]. Found guilty, she was fined one-days pay.

Reynolds challenged the disciplinary action taken against her and Arbitrator Louis M. Zigman ?overturned the discipline because it was based on a communication between Deputy Reynolds and her husband that was protected by the marital privilege.? The Sheriff?s Department appealed the arbitrator?s decision.

The major issue, said the court, is whether the marital communications privilege applies in law enforcement administrative investigations and hearings. It ruled that ?the privilege does not apply in law enforcement administrative investigations and hearings? as California courts ?have consistently held that the more fundamental, constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in law enforcement administrative investigations for reasons of public policy.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E043187.PDF

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 07, 2009 (boomark / email).