WAIT! So FDP Officer Wilson, whos ILLEGALLY refusing to make a report for fear of being incriminated

[starroute]

115. Wilson was required to file a report of some type

Back in August, I posted a link to this site: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1723&issue_id=22009

It discusses exactly these kinds of situations, and though the discussion isn't as clear at it might be, this is the paragraph that seems most relevant:

"Accordingly, officers may claim a Fifth Amendment privilege only in the narrow circumstance where they have been required to waive the privilege under duress and there is at least the prospect that the statement obtained under that circumstance would be introduced in a criminal proceeding against them. In addition, the privilege applies only to those statements that could actually be self-incriminating; other nonincriminating but relevant parts of a compelled interview may still be admissible in criminal proceedings against officers. Thus, for instance, there may be a wide range of questions that agencies may ask of officers that are relevant to and useful for the 'what happened' inquiry that would not be self-incriminating in the constitutional sense; thus, agencies may require their officers to answer them."

If I'm reading it right, this seems to say that Wilson could not have been compelled to report anything that could be self-incriminating, but that he did have a requirement to file a bare-bones account of the situation to the extent that it would not incriminate him. He did not do that.