What was the ruling in the case of Garrity v. New Jersey regarding evidence obtained under threat of dismissal?

In the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, the court ruled that statements made by a public employee under the threat of dismissal cannot be used against them in a criminal trial. This ruling is based on the principle that coercive interrogation tactics, such as the threat of job loss, compromise an individual's constitutional right against self-incrimination. The decision established that if an employee is compelled to provide statements under such threats, those statements lack the voluntariness essential for admissibility in a criminal proceeding. As a result, this ruling protects public employees from being forced to choose between their employment and their Fifth Amendment rights, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and safeguard individuals from self-incrimination under duress.