Main Menu

Wilson v. State

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Daniel Clark

In Wilson v. State, 478 P.3d 1217 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that neither public employees nor their counsel must be given notice of the privilege against self-incrimination in advance of an interview wherein employees’ answers will be compelled under threat of the termination. (Id. at 1225–26). In March of 2016, the Department of Corrections (DOC) began investigating a complaint alleging that Wilson had forced a subordinate to provide him with prescription medications. (Id. at 1218). During interviews, Wilson was explicitly informed that the answers he provided would not be used against him in criminal proceedings. (Id. at 1219–20). Wilson made it clear that he understood this information. (Id.). Wilson was subsequently terminated after refusing to answer questions. (Id.). Wilson sued the state for wrongful termination, arguing that the state violated his privilege against self-incrimination. (Id. at 1221). Wilson further argued that he was granted improper notice of his rights because notice was not provided to his attorney or provided in advance such that Wilson could consult with his attorney before interviews. (Id. at 1225). The court noted that there is a circuit split as to whether public employees must be explicitly informed of their privilege against self-incrimination when they are compelled to answer questions under threat of termination. (Id. at 1222). Here, the court reasoned it did not need to address this issue. (Id. at 1225). Wilson had been informed that his statements would not be used against him in criminal proceedings and had expressed his understanding of that privilege; therefore, the notice provided satisfied even the most protective standard. (Id. at 1225–26). Moreover, no circuit requires prior notice or notice to employees’ counsel. (Id. at 1226). Affirming the superior court’s grant of summary judgment to the State, the supreme court held that due process does not require notice of the privilege against self-incrimination be provided in advance of an interview to public employees or their counsel. (Id.).

Wilson v. State

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Daniel Clark

In Wilson v. State, 478 P.3d 1217 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that neither public employees nor their counsel must be given notice of the privilege against self-incrimination in advance of an interview wherein employees’ answers will be compelled under threat of the termination. (Id. at 1225–26). In March of 2016, the Department of Corrections (DOC) began investigating a complaint alleging that Wilson had forced a subordinate to provide him with prescription medications. (Id. at 1218). During interviews, Wilson was explicitly informed that the answers he provided would not be used against him in criminal proceedings. (Id. at 1219–20). Wilson made it clear that he understood this information. (Id.). Wilson was subsequently terminated after refusing to answer questions. (Id.). Wilson sued the state for wrongful termination, arguing that the state violated his privilege against self-incrimination. (Id. at 1221). Wilson further argued that he was granted improper notice of his rights because notice was not provided to his attorney or provided in advance such that Wilson could consult with his attorney before interviews. (Id. at 1225). The court noted that there is a circuit split as to whether public employees must be explicitly informed of their privilege against self-incrimination when they are compelled to answer questions under threat of termination. (Id. at 1222). Here, the court reasoned it did not need to address this issue. (Id. at 1225). Wilson had been informed that his statements would not be used against him in criminal proceedings and had expressed his understanding of that privilege; therefore, the notice provided satisfied even the most protective standard. (Id. at 1225–26). Moreover, no circuit requires prior notice or notice to employees’ counsel. (Id. at 1226). Affirming the superior court’s grant of summary judgment to the State, the supreme court held that due process does not require notice of the privilege against self-incrimination be provided in advance of an interview to public employees or their counsel. (Id.).