Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Connor

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1993No. 20023Published

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

  1. United States v. Robert S. FriedrickCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
  2. State v. RushoIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. State v. CulbertsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  4. United States v. CamachoDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1990
  5. State v. AitkenIdaho Court of Appeals · 1992

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API