In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), New Jersey police officers were investigated for allegedly fixing traffic tickets. The officers were informed that they could exercise their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if they wished, but doing so would cost them their jobs under a New Jersey statute which required all public employees to cooperate with investigations or forfeit their positions. The officers cooperated with the investigation but were prosecuted. They moved to suppress their statements as involuntary and coerced. The Supreme Court held that "statements obtained under threat of removal from office" cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings and reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision allowing the officers' statements into evidence. Garrity, supra, 385 U.S. at 499. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Garrity, federal and state courts asked to apply its holding to the facts before them have developed two distinct lines of authority, one requiring an explicit threat of termination and mandatory termination for a failure to cooperate and the other requiring an objectively reasonable, subjective belief on the part of the officer that he must answer questions or lose his job. The first line of authority evolved from United States v. Indorato, 628 F.2d 711 (1st Cir. 1980). 2 In Indorato, the First Circuit noted that in all of the cases flowing from Garrity, there are two common features: (1) the person being investigated is explicitly told that failure to waive his constitutional right against self-incrimination will result in his discharge from public employment (or a similarly severe sanction imposed in the case of private citizens); and (2) there is a statute or municipal ordinance mandating such procedure. Id. at 716. In Garrity v. New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court evaluated a case in which police officers were investigated by the Attorney General of New Jersey regarding improper treatment of traffic cases in municipal court. Before being questioned, each officer was warned: (1) that anything he said might be used against him in a criminal proceeding later; (2) that he had the right to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; (3) but, if he refused to answer, he would be subject to dismissal. The officers were forced to choose between losing their employment with the state, or incriminating themselves by answering the questions. The officers chose to answer the questions. Some of their answers were then used to convict them in subsequent prosecutions. The United States Supreme Court held that these statements were involuntary, because the officers were forced to choose "between the rock and the whirlpool." Id. at 498, 17 L. Ed. 2d at 566. The Court stated, "the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits the use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office . . . ." Id. at 500, 17 L. Ed. 2d at 567. The defendant further relies on Debnam v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 334 N.C. 380, 432 S.E.2d 324 (1993) to support his argument. The witnesses, police officers who were being investigated for misconduct, were told that they could remain silent, but that if they did so, they "would be subject to removal from office." Id. at 494. Severe penalties were attached to the exercise of their Fifth Amendment right, thus any statements they made under these circumstances were the result of compulsion and could not be used against them in any later criminal proceeding. Id. at 497-501. In sum, a number of police officers were questioned by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office with respect to allegations of fixing traffic tickets. Prior to questioning, the officers were told that (1) anything they said might be used against them in a criminal proceeding; (2) they had the right to refuse to answer; but (3) the refusal to answer would subject them to removal from office. The officers complied and answered the questions. Some of these statements were used in subsequent criminal proceedings which resulted in convictions of the police officers. In reversing the convictions, the Supreme Court held that the statements were procured by way of coercion because the officers were given the choice "either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves" which amounted to no choice at all, but a selection of "the lesser of two evils." (Id. at 497-498.)