James A. Gideon v. Ohio

Whether a professional license holder’s objectively reasonable, subjective belief that assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during a disciplinary investigation will result in revocation or suspension of his license is sufficient to trigger application of the exclusionary rule announced in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)? Whether a professional license holder’s subjective belief that assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will result in revocation or suspension of his license is objectively reasonable where a state statute expressly authorizes such a penalty for refusing to cooperate and truthfully answer questions during a disciplinary investigation, and a disciplinary investigator abuses his authority under the statute for the purpose of obtaining an admission for use in a criminal prosecution?