United States v. Michael Smith, 821 F.3d 1293

Background

On Aug. 4, 2010, Corrections Lt. Michael Smith participated in and then helped conceal the beating of inmate Rocrast Mack, who later died from blunt-force trauma. Smith prepared duty/incident reports and gave statements to ADOC Investigative & Intelligence (I&I) and the Alabama Bureau of Investigation (ABI) that contained falsehoods.
I&I and ABI conducted administrative and criminal inquiries, respectively; I&I interviews likely were compelled under threat of employment discipline.
Smith was terminated by the Alabama Department of Corrections on Oct. 1, 2010. The FBI later opened a federal investigation and, on Oct. 17, 2011, interviewed Smith (who by then worked for USPS).
During the FBI interview agents advised Smith of Garrity-type protections, presented a written consent form waiving use protection for prior compelled statements, and Smith signed it, then continued to give statements.
The FBI and federal prosecutors later used Smith’s prior statements in pursuing federal charges (civil-rights violations, obstruction, false statements). Smith moved to suppress on Garrity and sought a Kastigar hearing; district court denied relief and he was convicted.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Garrity protections can be waived post-termination if the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that Smith validly waived; it also held many challenged state statements were not Garrity-protected in any event.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garrity-protected statements can be waived after termination	Garrity bars use of compelled statements; a post-termination waiver cannot cure a prior Garrity violation	Garrity rights may be waived voluntarily later if waiver is knowing and intelligent	Waiver of Garrity is permissible post-termination if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; Smith validly waived
Whether Smith’s duty and incident reports were Garrity-protected (compelled)	Reports were produced under ADOC rules and threat of discipline, so were compelled	Reports were routine and Smith offered them to deflect suspicion; no subjective, reasonable belief of termination for refusing	Reports were not compelled under Garrity (no subjective/objectively reasonable belief of job loss)
Whether statements to ABI were compelled	ABI interviews occurred after state direction to report; thus statements were compelled	ABI investigator advised Miranda and conducted a criminal interview; no direct threat of termination and Smith waived Miranda	ABI statements were not Garrity-protected (no evidence of compulsion)
Whether FBI/prosecutors accessed Garrity-protected materials before Smith’s waiver and thus tainted the federal investigation (Kastigar claim)	State files containing compelled statements were shared and could have been accessed, tainting federal use	FBI agents testified they did not review Garrity-protected I&I materials before obtaining Smith’s written waiver; no prosecutors/agents had access beforehand	Court credited agent/state testimony; no Garrity-taint by federal side before waiver, so no Kastigar relief required

Key Cases Cited

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (public employees cannot be compelled under threat of job loss to surrender Fifth Amendment privilege)
United States v. Vangates, 287 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) (Garrity requires subjective belief of compulsion plus objective reasonableness)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (government must prove evidence is derived from independent sources when compelled testimony is used)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) (Fifth Amendment waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (waiver of immunity can permit use of disclosures in later prosecutions)