YOU are shilling …
The dissent makes clear that SCOTUS and LEGISLATIVE branch have decided LIES are not protected.
Some ass like you is putting Larsen on a short list when she clearly legislated from the bench here!!!
33 For what it is worth, interpreting MCL 15.393 as providing the same protections as
Garrity and its progeny, i.e., as not protecting false statements, is also consistent with
House Legislative Analysis, SB 647, December 7, 2006, which states:
The U.S. Supreme Court has already established that involuntary
statements made by law enforcement officers during internal investigations
cannot be used against the officers in a criminal prosecution. Concerning
this matter, the bill would simply codify the federal court ruling.
[Emphasis added.]
It is likewise consistent with Senate Legislative Analysis, SB 647, February 20, 2007,
which states:
By providing that an involuntary statement made by a law
enforcement officer, and any information derived from it, may not be used
against the officer in a criminal proceeding, the bill effectively codifies
Garrity protections in Michigan statutory law. [Emphasis added.]
Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, by the time that the DLEOA was enacted in 2006,
the “Garrity protections” were well understood as excluding protection of false
statements. While I recognize the limitations inherent in reliance on legislative analyses
as an aid in the construction of a statute, see In re Certified Question, 468 Mich at 115
n 5, it is nonetheless notable when the construction of a statute, reached without reliance
on a legislative analysis, conforms fully with such a legislative analysis.
34 More specifically, the officers’ statements cannot be used against them in a criminal
proceeding. However, the practical effect of that is almost always going to be the same
as immunity, as it was in this case.
14 JUDGES CONCLUDED THAT LIES ARE NOT PROTECTED - IF YOU COUNT THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND SCOTUS
MI SUPREME COURT IS COMPED