How to Fill Out the Garrity Warning Form for Police Officers

To fill out the Garrity Warning form, read every section before you sign, confirm the six standard elements are present and accurately completed (employee identification, the statement of compulsion, the grant of use and derivative-use immunity, the perjury exception, any confidentiality order, and the signature block), then sign and date the form in front of the investigator before any questioning begins. The steps below walk through what each field requires, what your signature commits you to, and how the executed form should be handled once the interview is over.

Confirm the Form Contains the Required Sections

There is no single federally mandated template. Each agency drafts its own version through internal legal counsel, but the core language is consistent because it flows from the same constitutional principle. Before you write anything on the form, verify that all of the following appear on it:

Employee identification: your full name, employee or badge number, assignment, and the date of the interview.
Statement of compulsion: a direct order that you must respond to all questions as part of an official administrative investigation, and that failure or refusal to answer may result in discipline up to and including termination.¹
Grant of immunity: language confirming that neither your statements nor any information or evidence gained from those statements can be used against you in any criminal proceeding.²
Perjury exception: a carve-out stating that the immunity does not cover false swearing or perjury; lying during the interview can still be prosecuted.³
Confidentiality order: many forms prohibit you from discussing the investigation with anyone other than your chain of command or attorney, with a warning that violating this order is itself grounds for discipline.¹
Signature block: a line for you to sign and date, confirming you read and understood the warning before questioning began. Some forms also include a line for the investigator’s signature and for a union representative or attorney if one is present.

New Jersey’s sample use-immunity advisement also includes a line where the employee acknowledges having invoked Miranda rights before the immunity was granted, signaling that the process moved from a potentially criminal inquiry to a compelled administrative one.³ Whether or not your agency’s form includes that step, every element on the form exists to document that you were ordered to talk, told the consequences of silence, and told the protections that apply to what you say.

Execute the Form Step by Step

Executing the form is straightforward, but the details matter if the interview record is ever challenged.

Read the entire form before signing. Do not skim. If any language is unclear, particularly the scope of immunity or the confidentiality order, ask the investigator to explain it on the record before you sign.
Fill in the identification fields yourself where the form requires it: name, badge or employee number, assignment, and date. Do not leave fields blank; write “N/A” if one does not apply to you.
Confirm the investigator reads the warning aloud or confirms that you have read it yourself, and that this exchange is recorded or documented in writing. If the interview is audio- or video-recorded, having the advisement on tape creates an additional layer of proof that the warning was properly delivered.
Sign and date the form. Your signature confirms you understood the warning before questioning started. If a union representative or attorney is present, they should sign as a witness.
Ask for a copy of the signed form before the interview begins.

If You Refuse to Sign

The refusal itself will be noted in the investigatory file, but it does not stop the interview or void the immunity. The investigator can proceed with the compelled interview and simply document that you declined to sign. Refusing to sign is not the same as refusing to answer. You can decline to put your name on the paper while still complying with the order to answer questions.

Understand What Your Signature Obligates You to Do

Once the form is executed, you must answer every question fully and truthfully. Because the immunity has removed the risk of criminal self-incrimination, you can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment as a reason to stay silent in this specific interview.³ The obligation to cooperate is a condition of your public employment, and the form documents that the agency held up its end of the bargain by granting immunity.

Refusing to answer after receiving the form is treated as insubordination. Most agencies consider it a standalone basis for termination, separate from whatever misconduct the investigation is examining. You may also face lesser discipline, such as a suspension, demotion, or formal reprimand, depending on your agency’s progressive discipline policy.

Lying during the interview creates problems far worse than whatever the original investigation was about. Agencies almost universally treat untruthfulness during an internal investigation as a fireable offense independent of the underlying allegations. For law enforcement officers, an untruthfulness finding can also be reported to the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training board, which may revoke certification after a hearing.⁴

Understand What the Form Protects

The form triggers two layers of protection. Use immunity bars prosecutors from introducing your actual compelled statements as evidence in a criminal trial. Derivative use immunity goes further, barring prosecutors from using any evidence they discovered as a result of your statements.³ If you tell investigators where a missing file is, neither your words nor the file itself can be used to prosecute you.

These protections are not a blank pardon. They shield your compelled statements from criminal use. They do not prevent the agency from using those same statements to discipline or fire you in an administrative proceeding. An admission of misconduct during a Garrity interview can end your career; it just cannot put you in prison.

If a prosecutor later brings criminal charges for the same conduct, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that every piece of evidence it plans to use came from a source entirely independent of your compelled statements, a rule the Supreme Court established in Kastigar v. United States.⁵ A properly executed Garrity form becomes critical evidence in that later fight, because it proves the statements were compelled and that the immunity framework applies.

One important carve-out sits inside the immunity itself. Compelled answers cannot be used against you in any criminal proceeding “except for perjury or false swearing,” as New Jersey’s model form states explicitly.³ The immunity lets you speak freely without incriminating yourself in the underlying matter; it does not authorize deception.

Ask for a Union Representative Before You Sign

If you are a unionized public employee, you have the right to request a union representative before or during an investigatory interview that you reasonably believe could lead to discipline. This right comes from the Supreme Court’s 1975 decision in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.⁶ The employer is not required to tell you about this right; you must ask for it. Once you make the request, the employer must either grant it and wait for a representative to arrive, or end the interview without questioning you.

Weingarten rights and Garrity rights operate in parallel. The Garrity form addresses what happens to your statements; Weingarten addresses who can be in the room while you give them. Having a representative present also provides a witness that the Garrity form was properly delivered and that the questions stayed within the scope of the administrative investigation.

Do Not Confuse This With a Kalkines Warning

Federal agencies use a related but distinct advisement called a Kalkines warning, named after Kalkines v. United States, 473 F.2d 1391 (Ct. Cl. 1973). The two look similar but work in opposite directions, and confusing them can lead you to make a serious mistake when you sign.

Garrity warning in some federal agency models (voluntary interview): the employee is told the interview is voluntary, that no discipline will result from refusing to answer, but that any statements given can be used in criminal or administrative proceedings. The Department of Justice OIG’s model warning follows this structure. Because the employee is free to walk away, the statements are considered voluntary and carry no automatic immunity.⁷
Kalkines warning (compelled interview): the employee is told they must answer or face termination, but their statements cannot be used against them in a criminal prosecution. This is the compelled version; the employee gets immunity in exchange for mandatory cooperation. A Kalkines warning is typically issued only after the investigating agency has confirmed with a prosecutor that criminal charges will not be pursued.

Many state and local agencies label their compelled-interview form a “Garrity Warning” even though it functions more like a Kalkines warning: the employee must answer and receives immunity. Read the actual language on the form you are handed rather than relying on the label. If the form says you must answer and grants immunity, treat it as compelled. If it says the interview is voluntary and warns that statements can be used against you, treat it as voluntary and consider carefully whether to speak at all.

One boundary worth noting: Garrity protections apply only to public employees. Private-sector employees, including those working for companies under government contracts, do not have Garrity rights, and no form the private employer issues creates them.⁸

Where the Completed Form Goes

After the interview, the original signed form goes into the internal-affairs or investigatory file, not the routine personnel file. A copy is typically provided to the employee and, where applicable, to the personnel or human resources department. Agencies store these records in secure, access-restricted environments because the contents are intertwined with compelled statements that carry constitutional protections.

If a criminal prosecutor later requests the investigation file, the agency must carefully separate compelled statements and any evidence derived from them before handing anything over. Failing to maintain that wall between the administrative record and the criminal case can contaminate the prosecution’s evidence and trigger suppression under the Kastigar framework.⁵ Well-run internal-affairs units build this separation into their file management from day one, tagging compelled materials so they can be identified and redacted without reviewing the entire file under time pressure.

1
University of Texas System. Garrity Warning
2
Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Garrity Warning Form
3
State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Appendix H Sample Use Immunity Grant Advisement Form
4
Colorado POST. FAQs – Decertification for Untruthfulness
5
Justia. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
6
Justia. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)
7
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. Interrogating Government Employees
8
Justia. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)