State v. Graham, 136 Ohio St. 3d 125

ODNR Division of Wildlife officials were investigated for possible misconduct related to issuing Ohio-resident licenses to out-of-state officers; the Ohio inspector general (OIG) conducted interviews of five high-level DOW personnel with oaths but no counsel advised.
OIG investigation led to a report accusing Wright of misconduct and accusing appellants of failing to report it, triggering potential criminal charges.
ODNR issued a Notice of Investigatory Interview warning that failure to cooperate could lead to disciplinary action up to termination, related to the OIG investigation.
Appellants were questioned by an OIG deputy in late 2009–early 2010; they provided detailed statements about past practices and disciplinary decisions.
Trial court suppressed the statements as coerced under Garrity; the court of appeals reversed; the Ohio Supreme Court held Garrity applies and reinstates suppression; the ODNR notice threat was sufficient to compel.
ODNR/Jurisdictional framework allowed the OIG to investigate and report to the employer for possible disciplinary action, forming the coercive context under Garrity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garrity applies to statements to the OIG during the ODNR investigation	Graham argues statements were compelled under Garrity and inadmissible	State contends Garrity does not apply since no express threat or coercive action by interrogator	Yes, Garrity applies; statements were compelled under threat of discipline
Whether the threat of discipline was objectively reasonable coercion under Friedrick	Appellants relied on general cooperation duties and lack of express threat	ODNR notice containing potential termination constitutes coercion	Yes; express threat in the notice made belief objectively reasonable and coercive
Whether the OIG’s investigative power suffices to trigger Garrity despite lack of direct arrest power	Coercion requires express threat; OIG power is limited	ODNR’s use of OIG, with attendant disciplinary reporting, suffices for coercion	Express threat in the notice was sufficient; Garrity applies regardless of OIG’s lack of arrest power

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (statements obtained under threat of removal from office may not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions)
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (public interest; compelled cooperation balancing)
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) (penalty-free compelled cooperation context)
Jones v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff, 52 Ohio St.3d 40 (1990) (immunity preserves privilege; compulsion analysis)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (same test for voluntariness; totality of circumstances)
United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to coercion)
State v. Brockdorf, 2006 WI 76, 717 N.W.2d 657 (Wis. 2006) (objective reasonable belief in threat required; totality of circumstances)
State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252 (1988) (voluntariness in the totality of circumstances)
State v. Jackson, 125 Ohio St.3d 218 (2010) (plurality on compelled statements; Garrity framework)