What was the ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey regarding evidence obtained under threat?

The ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey established that evidence obtained from individuals under the threat of losing their job or other privileges is not admissible in a criminal trial. The case involved police officers who were compelled to answer questions during an internal investigation under threat of termination, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that such coerced statements violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This principle protects individuals from being forced to provide incriminating evidence against themselves, reinforcing the idea that evidence gained under duress cannot be used in a court of law, particularly in a criminal context. The ruling emphasizes the importance of voluntary confession and due process rights in the judicial system.