Carney v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 19 December 1988
• Citation: 532 N.E.2d 631,403 Mass. 604
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 631

532 N.E.2d 631

403 Mass. 604

Michael P. CARNEY

v.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD et al. ¹ Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Dec. 19, 1988.

Kevin B. Coyle, East Longmeadow, for plaintiff.

Richard T. Egan, City Sol., for the City of Springfield.

James M. Shannon, Atty. Gen., & Lisa A. Levy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Civil Service Commission.

Before WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.

NOLAN, Justice.

The plaintiff, Michael P. Carney, appeals from a Superior Court judgment entered following allowance of a motion for summary judgment filed by the city of Springfield. The test whether a motion for summary judgment should be allowed is twofold: (1) whether after consideration of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits, a genuine issue of material fact exists; and (2) whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The Superior Court judge, in this action in the nature of certiorari, as provided by G.L. c. 249, § 4 (1986 ed.), affirmed a District Court judge's decision. The judgment in the District Court upheld the Civil Service Commission's approval of the board of police commissioners' successive votes to suspend Carney on two occasions and then to discharge him from the Springfield police department. Carney appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We now reverse.

1. Standard of Review. An action under G.L. c. 249, § 4, lies only where the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies. Reidy v. Acting Director of Civil Service, 354 Mass. 760, 236 N.E.2d 88 (1968). A court will correct only a substantial error of law, evidenced by the record, which adversely affects a material right of the plaintiff. Murray v. Second District Court of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 511, 451 N.E.2d 408 (1983). In its review, the court may rectify only those errors of law "which have resulted in manifest injustice to the plaintiff or which have adversely affected the real interests of the general public." Id. Our review, then, is to determine whether the Superior Court correctly determined that the record before the District Court showed no error of law in the commission's decision which adversely affected one of Carney's material rights. Id.

2. The Facts. In June of 1984, the police department began investigating alleged violations of narcotics laws by members of the department. ² Several officers were ordered to report to the department's Internal Investigation Unit (I.I.U.) regarding their fitness to perform their duties as police officers. Three department officers sought to enjoin the department from compelling them to report. ³ The Superior Court issued a declaration of rights but denied the officers' request for injunctive relief. ⁴

On August 8, 1984, Carney was ordered to report to the I.I.U. for questioning regarding his fitness to perform his official duties. The order made clear that the questioning concerned an ongoing criminal investigation which would "continue until the termination, by trial or otherwise, of such indictments as are presently pending." Carney was provided with a set of detailed questions addressing the purchase, sale, and use of controlled substances by certain Springfield police officers.

Deputy Chief of Police Robert Flanagan read Carney the Miranda warnings, including a warning that anything he said could be used against him in court. Carney refused to waive his right to remain silent, claiming rights under the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions. Flanagan then "acknowledged" that Carney had not waived his right to remain silent but ordered Carney to respond under threat of "departmental disciplinary proceedings." Carney twice indicated that he did not understand and asked Flanagan for clarification regarding the type of "proceedings" to which he would be subject. Flanagan merely repeated that he would be subject to departmental discipline. When Flanagan asked Carney for the third time if he understood, Carney responded, "Yes I do, whatever they might be. I don't know." Carney's attorney then objected to the questioning. Carney again asserted all the constitutional rights he might have, and refused to answer the questions. The interrogation concluded shortly thereafter.

The chief of police, Paul Fenton, suspended Carney that same day for refusing to answer the questions. Although Carney appealed his suspension and received a hearing on August 13, 1984, the appointing authority, the board of police commissioners, upheld it. He appealed.

Carney was again ordered to report to the I.I.U. for questioning. He appeared on August 16, 1984, was again given Miranda warnings, and told that anything he said could be used against him in court. Carney again declined to waive his constitutional rights but stated that he would answer some questions. Flanagan, the questioning officer, then acknowledged Carney's refusal to waive his rights and informed Carney that if he did not answer the questions regarding his fitness to perform his official duties that he would be subject to "departmental disciplinary proceedings."

At this point during the questioning, a discussion ensued between the city solicitor and Carney's attorney about whether the answers to the questions could be used against Carney in court. Carney's attorney inquired what efforts had been made to obtain immunity for Carney. ⁵ On advice of counsel, Carney refused to answer any further questions and was again suspended for a five-day period. He appealed the suspension.

On August 20, 1984, Carney received notice of disciplinary charges and, after a hearing on August 24, 1984, before the board of police commissioners, Carney was discharged as a police officer for insubordination, neglect, disobedience of orders, and an act contrary to the good order and discipline of the department.

Carney then appealed the decision to the commission, as provided by G.L. c. 31, §§ 41-43 (1986 ed.). On October 23, 1984, the commission heard the consolidated appeals from the two five-day suspensions and Carney's discharge from the department. The commission found no violation of Carney's rights under either the United States or Massachusetts Constitutions and that the questions propounded to Carney fell within the permissible scope of inquiry as established by both State and Federal law. Accordingly, the commission concluded that just cause existed to support the actions taken by the authority against Carney, and recommended upholding the two five-day suspensions and the discharge.

Despite subsequent appeals to the commission, to the District Court, and, by an action in the nature of certiorari, to the Superior Court as provided by G.L. c. 249, § 4 (1986 ed.), the commission's decision to uphold Carney's suspension and discharge was repeatedly affirmed.

Carney presents two issues on appeal: (1) whether the department properly advised Carney of his options and the specific consequences of his refusal to answer questions put to him; and (2) whether the department adequately assured Carney of the scope of his immunity from subsequent criminal prosecution if he answered the questions. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the department, in its interrogation of Carney, failed in both these respects.

3. Consequences Resulting from Refusal to Respond. It is well settled that public employees cannot be discharged simply because they invoke their privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution not to incriminate themselves in refusing to respond to questions propounded by their employers. Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of New York, 392 U.S. 280, 283-284, 88 S.Ct. 1917, 1919, 20 L.Ed.2d 1089 (1968). Statements compelled from employees at a disciplinary hearing, under threat of discharge, cannot constitutionally be held against them in a later criminal prosecution. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, 87 S.Ct. 616, 620, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). Notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment prohibition, a public employer does not remain totally helpless in discovering information relevant to its employees' job performance. Indeed, as we held in Broderick v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 368 Mass. 33, 38, 330 N.E.2d 199 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1048, 96 S.Ct. 773, 46 L.Ed.2d 636 (1976), public employees can be discharged for refusing to answer questions narrowly drawn and specifically related to their job performance, where the answers cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding.

Where public employers compel answers in an investigation, however, the employer, at the time of the interrogation, must specify to the employee the precise repercussions (i.e., suspension, discharge, or the exact form of discipline) that will result if the employee fails to respond. See Kalkines v. United States, 473 F.2d 1391, 1393, 200 Ct.Cl. 570 (1973). Where, as here, economic sanctions threaten an individual's livelihood, a general warning that the employee may be subject to "departmental disciplinary proceedings" is insufficient. ⁶ Moreover, an employee's awareness that other employees have been punished in similar circumstances does not render recitation of the warning unnecessary; the burden to inform remains on the employer at each appropriate stage of the questioning. The record demonstrates that Deputy Chief Flanagan, while interrogating Carney, failed to meet this standard.

4. Transactional Immunity Required to Compel Testimony. An employer may compel an employee under threat of discharge to answer questions reasonably related to job performance. Patch v. Mayor of Revere, 397 Mass. 454, 455, 492 N.E.2d 77 (1986). Because of the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, however, any answers obtained involuntarily may not be used against the employee in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S....