## Facts

- Stephen Cook, a Deputy United States Marshal, was accused of assaulting Omar Hunter, a prisoner in U.S. Marshals Service custody, at a courthouse sallyport.
- After Hunter filed a citizen complaint (Aug. 30, 2005), Cook’s supervisor directed Cook to complete two standard agency reports: a USM-210 Field Report and a USM-133 Use of Force Report.
- Cook completed and submitted both written reports.
- A federal grand jury later indicted Cook (May 11, 2006) on multiple counts, including deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512).
- Cook moved pretrial to suppress his written reports, arguing they were compelled statements under Garrity because he believed he would be fired if he refused to submit them.
- At an evidentiary hearing (Oct. 15, 2007), Cook testified he feared termination for noncompliance; his supervisor testified incident reports were routinely required after prisoner complaints; the Chief Inspector testified refusal might have led to discipline but “almost certainly” not firing, and it was not then clear Cook faced a formal internal investigation or criminal prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether Cook’s statements in required incident reports were “compelled” under Garrity such that the Fifth Amendment barred their use in a federal criminal prosecution.
2. Whether Cook’s claimed fear of termination for refusing to file the reports, even if sincerely held, was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to suppress.
- The court held the reports were not Garrity-compelled because Cook failed to show an objectively reasonable threat of termination for refusing to submit them.
- The court found no express threat of firing and no implied threat supported by agency policy or practice beyond routine reporting expectations.
- The court concluded that the possibility of discipline short of termination did not amount to the coercion required for Garrity protection.

## Legal Principles

- Under Garrity, the government may not use a public employee’s statement in a criminal case if the statement was obtained by coercion that effectively forced a choice between self-incrimination and job loss.
- To establish Garrity compulsion, the employee must show (1) a subjective belief that refusal to answer would result in termination and (2) that the belief was objectively reasonable.
- Routine administrative reporting requirements, without an express or implied threat of termination, do not alone establish Garrity compulsion.
- The objective reasonableness inquiry turns on the employer’s policies, practices, and the surrounding circumstances, including whether refusal would likely lead to firing rather than lesser discipline.

## Conclusion

The court refused to suppress a deputy marshal’s incident and use-of-force reports because, although he claimed he feared termination if he did not comply, the record showed only routine reporting and at most the prospect of non-terminating discipline, which did not constitute Garrity compulsion under the Fifth Amendment.


United States v. Cook, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007)