An Indiana jury found that the Indiana State Police acted negligently in its conduct of a polygraph examination of a parole officer who was fired after a panel of judges was told he had failed the polygraph. William J. Booher reports for the Indianapolis Star in an article titled, “Man Wins $600-k in Lie Detector Suit”:
A jury has awarded $600,000 to a former Shelby County probation officer who was fired based on what his attorneys argued was a negligently administered polygraph test.
The six-member Shelby Superior Court jury in Shelbyville late Wednesday awarded Daniel P. Morgan, 38, $400,000 on his claim of negligent administration of a polygraph examination and $200,0000 on his claim of reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A panel of three Shelby County judges overseeing the county probation department fired Morgan on June 13, 1997, after meeting with a State Police senior polygrapher and the intern who administered the exam, said Kevin W. Betz and Sandra L. Blevins, Morgan’s co-counsel.
Morgan filed his lawsuit in 1999, and the case reached various appeals courts before it made it to state court in Shelby County before Special Judge Karen Love of Hendricks County.
Morgan, who was a probation officer in Shelby County for five and a half years and now lives in Franklin, took the polygraph exam after a 16-year-old boy on probation accused him of making sexual advances, his attorneys said.
The attorneys for Morgan, who now works for the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation, argued during the trial that the more experienced, senior State Police polygrapher failed to tell the judges overseeing the probation department that the polygraph results were “inconclusive,” while the intern who administered the test told the judges the results showed Morgan was “slam dunk deceptive.”
Staci Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Attorney General’s office, said it would be several days before a decision is made in consultation with the State Police on whether to appeal.
The monetary judgments were handed down against the State Police. The jury also found the intern polygraph examiner at the time, Timothy Kaiser, now a State Police first sergeant, liable for punitive damages, but assessed no monetary payment against him.
Call Star reporter William Booher at (317) 444-2706.
The Associated Press provides further detail in an article titled “Jury Finds State Police Negligent for Polygraph Test” that was published in the Fort Wayne News Sentinel:
SHELBYVILLE, Ind. – A jury found that state police negligently administered a polygraph test to a probation officer after a teenager accused him of making sexual advances.
The results of that test were considered when Shelby County officials fired Daniel P. Morgan in 1998 from the job he had held for more than five years.
The six-member Shelby Superior Court jury ruled late Wednesday in favor of Morgan’s claim of reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded him $600,000 in damages.
Special Judge Karen Love of Hendricks County cut the damage award to $300,000 because of liability limits against government agencies, said Kim Wilkins, an attorney who represented the state police.
The attorneys for Morgan, 38, of Franklin, argued during the trial that the state police official overseeing the polygraph test failed to tell the three county judges who fired Morgan that the results were inconclusive, while the intern who administered the test reported the results showed Morgan was “slam dunk deceptive.”
The jury found the intern examiner, Timothy Kaiser, who is now a state police first sergeant, liable for punitive damages, but assessed no monetary judgment against him.
“We feel that Sgt. Kaiser and the Indiana State Police did their job and did it properly, but the jury felt differently,” Wilkins said.
Morgan filed his lawsuit in 1999 and issues in the case reached the state Supreme Court before going to trial. The polygraph test was given after a 16-year-old boy on probation said Morgan had solicited him for sex.
Morgan’s attorney, Kevin Betz, said the last decade has been dreadful for his client.
“Money cannot make up for that,” Betz said. “It at least vindicates him.”
Staci Schneider, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, said it would be several days before a decision was made on whether to appeal the verdict.
No one should ever be fired based on the results of pseudoscientific lie detector “tests.” The case of Daniel P. Morgan speaks to the need for a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act extending to all Americans the protections afforded to most by the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which hypocritically excludes federal, state, and local governments from its scope.