In the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, what was ruled about evidence gathered under threat of dismissal?

In the landmark case of Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence collected from public employees under the threat of dismissal is not admissible in a criminal trial. This ruling is grounded in the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The coercive nature of the threat of dismissal essentially nullifies the voluntariness of the statements given, as individuals may feel compelled to provide information to avoid losing their job, rather than providing a true and voluntary account.

This precedent is significant as it ensures that confessions or admissions made under duress cannot be used against the individual in criminal proceedings, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal process and protecting individual rights against coercive practices. The ruling emphasizes the importance of ensuring that any evidence used in a criminal trial is obtained in a manner that respects constitutional protections.