After reading the Kalkines v. United States case, I determined that if I were the judge, I would find the plaintiff’s dismissal from his job at the Bureau of Customs of the Treasury Department invalid. Kalkines had worked for the stated government institution for more than seven years until he was suspended because he was under investigation for taking bribes from the representatives of importers. As the internal investigation of his activities was going on, the US Attorney’s Office was conducting a criminal analysis on the plaintiff, which did not result in an indictment. The reason that the organization gave for Kalkines’ dismissal was that he refused to answer specific questions concerning the payments he received, his finances and performance on four different occasions (Garrity Rights, 2019). However, on all the instances, the plaintiff was not advised of his constitutional rights, a critical factor that invalidates the Bureau of Customs’ decision to dismiss him from his job. The lack of information may have contributed to the plaintiff’s adamancy in providing the investigating agents the answers they needed. Additionally, by failing to declare Kalkines possibility of using immunity privileges, the customs agents that were investigating his case gave him a reason to be apprehensive as he sought to mitigate his chances of criminally incriminating himself by responding to their questions.
The findings stated above are correct because the court also established that Kalkines’ dismissal was invalid. The issue in focus during the case was whether the plaintiff was properly advised on the options that he had and the consequences of the choice that he made. Therefore, the court held that Kalkines was not duly informed based on the parameters stated above (Garrity Rights, 2019). Hence, his dismissal was an unsubstantiated decision.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court established that a public servant might only be removed from their position for failing to reply to inquiries if they are properly informed that they are subject to discharge for refusing to respond and that their replies cannot be used to implicate them in a criminal case (Garrity Rights, 2019) . Additionally, the court’s reasoning was founded on the provisions of Uniformed Sanitation I and II, which established that the matter of concern in the case was whether the employee received information that thoroughly determined the options at his disposal and the consequences of his choice of action (Garrity Rights, 2019) . Moreover, since the investigating agents did not explain that Kalkines could use his immunity privileges, they gave him a reason to refuse to answer their questions because he knew that he was subject to a criminal investigation and wanted to avoid the chance of incriminating himself with the responses he gave (Garrity Rights, 2019) . Thus, the court’s decision established the necessity of employing proper procedures when investigating the conduct of civil servants.
Reference
Garrity Rights. (2019). Kalkines v. U.S. Retrieved 9 September 2019, from http://www.garrityrights.org/kalkines-v-us.html
