State v. Connor
Idaho Supreme Court
1Dissent
FULLER, Judge Pro Tem.,
dissents.
I dissent as to Part II, and concur with Part III of the majority opinion.
Connor’s undisputed testimony showed: he was under orders by the state police to cooperate in any investigation (T. p. 22, Is. 9-10); he was placed on administrative leave and told he was required to meet with the state’s investigator by the state police district commander (T. p. 7, Is. 7-15); Connor’s understanding was that he would be terminated from his employment if he did not submit to investigations (T. p. 8, Is. 3-8).
The Garrity v. New Jersey rule to exclude incriminating…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. Robert S. FriedrickCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- State v. RushoIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
- State v. CulbertsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
- United States v. CamachoDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1990
- State v. AitkenIdaho Court of Appeals · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.