People of Michigan v. William Little
885 N.W.2d 832
Mich.2016Background
- In Nov 2009 Detroit officers Hughes, Harris, and Little were investigated after a complaint alleging Hughes assaulted Dajuan Hodges-Lamar; all three gave statements at an OCI Garrity hearing under threat of employment sanction.
- Department advice-of-rights form promised that statements "or any information ... gained by reason of such statements" could not be used in subsequent criminal proceedings; no requirement of truthfulness was stated.
- Each officer made statements inconsistent with later-discovered video evidence; Harris and Little denied physical contact, Hughes minimized force.
- Prosecutor charged Hughes with misconduct in office and assault; all three were charged with obstruction of justice based on alleged lies in the internal interview.
- District and circuit courts dismissed the obstruction counts under Michigan’s Disclosures by Law Enforcement Officers Act (DLEOA), MCL 15.391 et seq.; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding false statements fell outside the DLEOA’s protection.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the DLEOA precludes using compelled Garrity statements (including false ones) in subsequent criminal prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DLEOA bars use of compelled Garrity statements in later criminal proceedings | Prosecution: DLEOA codifies Garrity as interpreted by federal cases; false statements are not protected and may be used to prosecute perjury/obstruction | Defendants: DLEOA plain text protects any "information" compelled under threat of employment sanction, without a veracity requirement | Held: DLEOA plain language bars use of an officer’s involuntary statement and any information derived from it in criminal proceedings, whether true or false; obstruction charges dismissed |
| Whether the Fifth Amendment (Garrity) independently bars use of false compelled statements | Prosecution: Federal Garrity jurisprudence (Wong/Apfelbaum) permits prosecution for perjury/false statements despite prior compulsion | Defendants: Relied primarily on statutory protection (DLEOA), not Garrity | Held: The Fifth Amendment does not bar criminal prosecutions for false compelled statements (majority accepts federal precedent), but the case turns on the broader statutory protection DLEOA provides |
| Whether "information" in DLEOA includes false or misleading statements | Prosecution: "Information" should be read to imply truth; statutes that limit to "truthful information" show legislature would have said so if intended | Defendants: Ordinary meaning of "information" and statutory context include both true and false statements; legislature omitted "truthful" intentionally | Held: "Information" under DLEOA includes statements regardless of veracity; legislative usage and McIntire support reading the statute to protect compelled statements even if false |
| Whether "compelled" excludes knowingly false statements | Prosecution: Falsehoods are voluntary choices, not compelled, so outside DLEOA | Defendants: Compulsion relates to making a statement at all; whether the officer lies does not remove statutory protection | Held: Majority rejects voluntariness argument for statutory scope—because DLEOA defines "involuntary statement" as compelled information, and statute contains no veracity exception, protection applies even to false statements (concurrence would disagree) |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1967) (compelled statements under threat of removal from office cannot be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions)
- United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1977) (Fifth Amendment does not protect perjury; false testimony may be used in subsequent prosecution)
- United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1980) (use-immunity and the Fifth Amendment do not shield false statements or perjury prosecutions)
- People v. McIntire, 461 Mich. 147 (Mich. 1999) (interpretive principle: immunity statutes must be applied according to plain statutory text; courts may not graft veracity requirements absent legislative language)
- People v. Hughes, 306 Mich. App. 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (Court of Appeals opinion reversing dismissal; held false Garrity statements not protected by DLEOA)