{"id":1646,"date":"2016-05-30T05:33:36","date_gmt":"2016-05-30T10:33:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=1646"},"modified":"2017-09-28T22:05:33","modified_gmt":"2017-09-29T03:05:33","slug":"minnesota-appeals-court-rules-polygraph-results-inadmissible-in-probation-revocation-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2016\/05\/30\/minnesota-appeals-court-rules-polygraph-results-inadmissible-in-probation-revocation-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"Minnesota Appeals Court Rules Polygraph Results Inadmissible in Probation-Revocation Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n<p>In a 10-page published <a href=\"http:\/\/macsnc.courts.state.mn.us\/ctrack\/document.do?document=76da85664349f916be3a0ab71f4fdf8cc216a646d7f5ecfbf5bb3f644caa30b5\">decision<\/a> (PDF) filed on 23 May 2016, the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mncourts.gov\/CourtOfAppeals.aspx\">Minnesota Court of Appeals<\/a> ruled that &#8220;[b]ecause polygraph testing has not been proven reliable, polygraph test results are not admissible as substantive evidence of a probation violation in probation-revocation proceedings.&#8221; The case is <em>State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Chad Michael Nowacki, Appellant<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a 10-page published decision (PDF) filed on 23 May 2016, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that &#8220;[b]ecause polygraph testing has not been proven reliable, polygraph test results are not admissible as substantive evidence of a probation violation in probation-revocation proceedings.&#8221; The case is State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Chad Michael Nowacki, Appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[157],"class_list":{"0":"post-1646","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-pcsot","8":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1646"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1830,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646\/revisions\/1830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}