{"id":335,"date":"2009-08-20T06:30:52","date_gmt":"2009-08-20T10:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=335"},"modified":"2009-08-20T06:34:19","modified_gmt":"2009-08-20T10:34:19","slug":"is-patrick-t-coffey-fit-to-be-screening-police-applicants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2009\/08\/20\/is-patrick-t-coffey-fit-to-be-screening-police-applicants\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Patrick T. Coffey Fit to Be Screening Police Applicants?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Following up on his previous article on the San Francisco Police Department’s reliance on polygraph screening–despite broad scientific consensus that it is invalid–S.F. Weekly<\/em> reporter Matt Smith takes an in-depth look<\/a> at the man the SFPD has hired to polygraph applicants: Patrick T. Coffey, who received “$81,463 during the last fiscal year” for his services. Smith addresses bigoted postings<\/a> that Coffey made to the AntiPolygraph.org message board in 2005 under the moniker “TheNoLieGuy4U” and also reveals that Coffey paid $10,000 to settle a 2002 lawsuit by a man who alleged that Coffey “performed a voice-stress-analysis exam on him without permission.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Following up on his previous article on the San Francisco Police Department’s reliance on polygraph screening–despite broad scientific consensus that it is invalid–S.F. Weekly reporter Matt Smith takes an in-depth look at the man the SFPD has hired to polygraph applicants: Patrick T. Coffey, who received “$81,463 during the last fiscal year” for his services. …<\/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":[73,70,72],"class_list":{"0":"post-335","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-patrick-t-coffey","8":"tag-polygraph-screening","9":"tag-san-francisco-police-department","10":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335","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=335"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335\/revisions\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}