State v. Welchman, 292 Neb. 227

Michael S. Weichman, a maintenance supervisor at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women, was investigated after allegations he had a sexual relationship with an inmate.
After initial denials, Weichman agreed to and later submitted to a polygraph on May 5, 2014, during which he admitted receiving oral sex from the inmate. The inmate later corroborated sexual relations after being told of his admission.
Weichman was charged with first degree sexual abuse of an inmate and moved to suppress his statements made during the polygraph, arguing they were coerced under Garrity and the Fifth Amendment; he also sought suppression of the inmate’s statements as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Investigators and the polygraph examiner told Weichman participation was optional; Weichman testified he received a written directive from the warden and believed refusal would result in termination, though no one expressly threatened firing and no statute or policy mandated discharge for refusing the polygraph.
The district court denied the suppression motion; on stipulated-fact bench trial Weichman was convicted and sentenced to 1–2 years. He appealed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements made by Weichman during a polygraph were involuntary/coerced under Garrity and the Fifth Amendment and therefore subject to suppression	Weichman: the warden’s written directive and surrounding circumstances gave rise to a subjective and objectively reasonable belief that refusal would lead to termination, so his admissions were coerced	State: participation was optional; Weichman was told he need not submit, no express "or else," no statute/policy mandating discharge, so no Garrity coercion occurred	Court: Applied subjective/objective test — found Weichman had a subjective belief he would be fired, but that belief was not objectively reasonable given totality of circumstances (no express threats, told participation optional, no statute/policy requiring discharge). Statements admissible

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (statements compelled by threat of job loss are involuntary and inadmissible)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and Fifth Amendment protections)
Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (discusses when Fifth Amendment privilege is considered "compelled")
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (limits on Fifth Amendment protections in certain interview settings)
United States v. Indorato, 628 F.2d 711 (1st Cir. 1980) (approach limiting Garrity to cases with explicit threat/statutory mandate of discharge)
U.S. v. Camacho, 739 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (discusses subjective/objective test for Garrity coercion and relevance of state role in creating belief of discharge)