Federal court blocks a grand jury subpoena seeking police internal affairs statements. Use of a "Garrity Review Team" was viewed as too "complex." In re U.S. v. Doe, # N04-2294; G.J. 2005-2, 434 F.Supp.2d 377, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38699 (E.D. Va. 2006). [2006 FP Dec]
     Supreme Court allows an untenured employee to sue his superiors when he claims that he was fired for testifying before a grand jury. Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S.Ct. 489, 1998 U.S. Lexis 8081. {N/R}
     White House Counsel case could affect any public employee that consults a government attorney for advice. U.S. Appeals court rejects attorney-client confidentiality for federal grand jury questions directed to government counsel. In re: Bruce R. Lindsey (Grand Jury Testimony), #98-3060, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 17066, 148 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir.). [1998 FP 153-4]
     Federal appeals court refuses to recognize a “protective function” privilege from grand jury testimony. In re: Sealed Case, #98-3069, 148 F.3d 1073, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 15132 (D.C.Cir. 1998). [1998 FP 138]
     Jury awards $31,000 general and $121,000 punitive damages to a police officer who, in 1989, was transferred for taking the Fifth Amendment at a grand jury proceeding. Judge overturns the verdict because in 1989 the right to be free from a punitive transfer was not clearly established. Chan v. City of Chicago, 916 F.Supp. 804, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 1905 (N.D.Ill.). [1996 FP 174]
     Federal appeals court refuses to quash a U.S Attorney’s subpoena for police internal reports, including officers" compelled statements. Fifth Amendment governs improper use of compelled statements, not their production in a grand jury proceeding. Grand Jury Subpoena ex rel. Huntington Beach P.O.A. v. U.S., 75 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 148]
     Federal appeals court rules that a federal grand jury can subpoena an officer's IAD-compelled statements. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas v. U.S., 40 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 1994); cert. den. 115 S.Ct. 1957 sub nom Nakamura v. U.S. [1995 FP 54]
     Depression induced by a grand jury investigation of a police dept. is an insufficient basis to award job-related disability benefits to a police employee who was not the focus of the probe. North Huntingdon Twp. v. WCAB, 644 A.2d 227 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994). [1995 FP 110]
     Immunized, compelled grand jury testimony could be used against an officer in his disciplinary hearing. Denisewich (In re), 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994). [1995 FP 100]
     Dept. could not transfer an officer, for taking the Fifth Amendment at a grand jury proceeding to a less desirable assignment with loss of overtime and take-home vehicle. Transfer was a “constructive demotion.” Chan v. City of Chicago, 777 F.Supp. 1437 (N.D. Ill. 1991); also see the 1996 damage award ruling at 916 F.Supp. 804 (above). [1992 FP 55]
     Federal court quashes Grand Jury Subpoenas that sought “Garrity” statements of officers, contained in IAD files. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Custodian of Records, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., [Unreported] #89 Misc. 492 (E.D. Mo. 2/6/90). AELE Ref. # 5633 (Copy of Court's Order).
     Public safety employees entitled to take fifth amendment at grand jury proceedings. Mountain v. City of Schenectady, 474 N.Y.S.2d 612 (A.D. 1984).
     Officer entitled to recover legal fees for representation in grand jury investigation of officer for off-duty shooting. Van Horn v. City of Trenton, 80 N.J. 528, 404 A.2d 615 (1979).
     Exclusionary rule does not extend to grand jury proceedings. U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974). {N/R}
     Appellate court upholds termination of a police officer who gave "evasive" answers to a grand jury. Donnelly v. Police Dept., 40 A.D.2d 649, 336 N.Y.S.2d 508 (1972).