Is a police officer's coerced confession suppressed in an administrative mandamus application?

Additionally, the case of Estes v. City of Grover City, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d 509, 147 Cal.Rptr. 131, lends support to the conclusion that the statement here should be suppressed. The court in Estes reviewed a decision by the trial court, exercising its independent judgment, granting an administrative mandamus petition. The petitioner in Estes was a police officer who had admitted to certain acts under the threat of a polygraph examination. The officer was suspended for three days. He filed a petition for administrative mandamus. Because a "fundamental vested right" was involved, the trial court reviewed the suspension under the independent judgment test. In "reviewing" the evidence the trial court excluded consideration of the admission as it was obtained in contravention of section 3307. ⁶ That is, the court "suppressed" the statement in its reconsideration. The appellate court upheld the court's action, finding application of section 3307 barred the use of the coerced confession in reaching the administrative decision. Because here petitioner's statement was coerced in the sense that he was compelled to answer fully and honestly on pain of termination, without the opportunity to exercise the right to silence, his statement must be likewise stricken from administrative consideration. (See also Evid.Code, 919.)