Kona

I forgot to add that I would never advocte a class action lawsuit. As I said, 20 individual suits has much more impact than a class action that numbers 200. Your compensation is quite larger, also, when you win. A win is a case for the next Memorandum of Law.

Kona

Reread my first and last paragraphs. My drift was, if one is intent on working in LE, then keep on taking polys until one finally passes or gets tired of being called a liar. One certainly has the right to keep on taking polys while waiting 10 years (your time frame, indeed not mine) for the polygraph to be abolished by the efforts of others. My question will always be - how many times does a truthful person allow being called a liar before saying enough is enough and I'm going to regain my integrety? I guess the law of averages would come into play and you would pass 1 out of 10.

Disagreement is the bases of debate. I don't mind at all being disagreed with but, I do mind being called a liar and will not put up with it from anyone. I will never understand why anyone would put with it but then, that's only my thoughts.

I do hope you pass your next poly and make a good cop.

Twoblock,

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here.  You are of the opinion that a failed polygraph renders any future in LE practically impossible.  I simply disagree.  I know people that have failed polygraphs with one city police agency, and passed with another.  It seems to me that from my own personal experience, and that of my friends, that one police agency doesn't care about the other's polygraph results.  Both agencies that I tested with said they had the best polygraphers in the state, and they didn't care what any other agency's results were.....go figure.  I can't speak from experience how federal agencies treat other's polygraph results, because I simply don't know.  Sorry for being long winded, but my point is, would you want to be in the middle of the application process with say....San Diego PD, while at the same time you are one of many plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the LAPD for its use of the polygraph in pre-employment screening?  Talk about having a big red flag on your package.  I would gather that the San Diego PD wouldn't exactly have a warm and fuzzy feeling towards you and your future as a police officer there.  That is why I feel that your advise to hop on the lawsuit train is ill advised for anyone out there that wants to be employed with a city PD/Sheriff's Dept in the not too distant future.  If there are applicants out there that want to join these class action lawsuits, you'd better think long and hard about the ramifications of this.  Someone smarter than me once said, "Justice is like a train that's nearly always late."  Think about it.   

Hi George,

I salute what you are doing here.  This site has so much to offer anyone that is faced with the humiliating possibility of the polygraph experience.  Keep up the great work.   

As I alluded to before, I have zero knowledge/experience with regard to the entire federal LE polygraph experience.  My only experience has been at the city/county level.   

I noticed that the 1st ammended complaint of Croddy, et al. vs the FBI was filed in Oct of 2000, which was three years ago.  Where does this lawsuit sit right now?  I imagine somewhere in legal limbo, between all the Defendent's motion to dismiss and crossmotion for discovery, and the Plaintiff's opposition to the afformentioned.  My whole point here is that these legal remedies take time and money (lots of each).  While these lawsuits may be the "right thing to do," it might not be the best course of action for some of the lurkers here on these message boards.  Some of the people here (city/county LE applicants) might be better served by moving on, applying to different LE agencies, using countermeasures, and landing the job.  Sometimes it's better to sidestep the bully, rather than punch him in the nose.   

Ok, I'm tired of typing.

Kona

Kona wrote on Oct 18^th, 2003 at 12:44pm:


Actually, a number of plaintiffs have filed suit against several federal agencies over their reliance on polygraphy for pre-employment screening. A prime objective of these suits is to clear the names of the plaintiffs, who allege that they were falsely accused of deception. The suits have survived a governmental request for summary judgement: a federal judge disagreed that these suits were a "frivolous waste of time," and they are moving forward.

Washington attorney Mark S. Zaid is representing these plaintiffs. See:

http://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#zaid

Any who might also be interested in filing suit against a federal agency may contact Mr. Zaid at (202) 223-9050.

The LAPD, with a pre-employment polygraph failure rate of about 50%, has no doubt wrongly branded enough people as liars that a class action lawsuit could be brought. Any who might be interested in such a lawsuit might wish to contact AntiPolygraph.org, and we could look into ways of putting potential plaintiffs into contact with one another.

Kona

To those of you who have the determination to work to work in LE, my advise is to keep going for it. There is a need for good LEO's and determination, to me, is an exceptional plus. However, for a truthful person having to use countermeasures to beat a "one man one machine decision without  background investigations" is wrong. Lawsuits would force background investigations and it's up to the polygrapher and his/her department to prove that their subject is lieing.

Everyone knows that the polygraph, in the private sector, has been abolished. In the federal and state LE agencies, the powers to be HAS the power to be. Evidently, the only way to control this power, has to come from our congress in Wash. D.C. Until we send them a strong message, to change it or return home, it will remain status quo.

For those who insist on running the polygraph gauntlet and your future in LE has been destroyed, then I say dig a little deeper in that determination reserve and sue. Is that fair enough?

Ok Twoblock,

I see we are talking apples and oranges here.  I'm am talking about doing whatever you have to in order to GET THE JOB in law enforcement that so many here on these boards want, and you are talking about getting the polygraph removed from the employment process through legal means.  Fair enough.  I was just curious what advise you have to the many people here that really want the job within the next year or so.  Not the ones that are willing to wait for all the legal wrangling to be settled in the next say....10 years or so?  I applaud what George is doing here, but many of us that want and need the job now don't have the time to wait for a legal remedy to be our savior.  I agree with you that the polygraph is hocus pocus BS, but until it is abolished (which I personally don't see happening for a long time) I think it is important to use whatever means necessary to overcome it and move along.

Kona

Skeptic

Right on, Bud. I like your attitude.

I understand both positions.

I would simply like to get on with my life, after the "fun" of my NSA polygraphs.  But I will tell you this: a lawsuit will likely be in the offing if those polygraphs get in the way of future opportunities...

Skeptic

Twoblock wrote on Oct 18^th, 2003 at 4:33pm:

Kona

The objective is to get polygraph job screening abolished and I believe 20 individual lawsuits will have more impact than one class action lawsuit. Some, not all, may be thrown out but then, there is the appeal route.

I guess I am mainly advocating fighting for one's integrity. George is a case in point. He was done wrong and is sure fighting back. I admire his tenacity. Most in the polygraph community can only counter with adolescent character assassination.

As I have stated "call me a liar and I'm gonna get in your face big time. No matter who or what you are".

Twoblock,

I think what a majority of people who post on this message board want.......is a job in law enforcement.  I don't see many people on these boards who would seriously consider filing a lawsuit for being found deceptive, or having inconclusive results on a polygraph.  Just what are you going to sue the LAPD for, slander?  Defamation of character maybe?  Good luck.  I'm no Johnny Cochran, but I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that a suit of that nature would be thrown out of court faster than you could say frivolous waste of time.   

It is not impossible to fail a polygraph at one agency, then test at another law enforcement agency, and pass.  In my case, I was found deceptive on one polygraph, and given a retest a week later at the same police dept, and passed with a different polygrapher.   

IMHO, the people on these boards that have failed a polygraph in the past need to learn from that experience, educate themselves here on the entire process, and move on.  If one chooses not to learn from that negative experience, and wallow in self pity or righteous indignation, they are most certainly doomed to repeat that failure.  Apply to a different agency, use countermeasures on the polygraph, and GET THE JOB.  Lesson learned, mission accomplished.                     

Cheers,
Kona

Kona

When a polygrapher fails you, they ARE accusing you of, at least, being a liar. Isn't that character assassination? They should be made to prove that you are a liar. What if, at their next job poly, the polygrapher asks "have you ever taken a polygraph"?. If they answer truthfully, aren't they likely to fail again based on the past failure? That seems to be the story of posters here.

I am not advocating sueing to get a job. I am talking about sueing for damages. Who, in their right mind, would want to work for an organization that has officially branded them a liar? However, if one has lied, then tuck-tail and disappear.

A pro se lawsuit only costs the filing fee. You can find out how to file pro se on the internet and there are pro bono organizations that will help.

If one cares about themselves, they will fight for their integrity.

Two Block,

First of all, I don't believe that a polygrapher would formally accuse any of these potential law enforcement recruits of any specific wrongdoing, let alone charge them with a crime, unless it was something serious.  All they have to say is that deception was indicated, or that the results were inconclusive, and we can't offer you a job.  Secondly, I doubt that any of these gentlemen possess the monetary resources to retain an attorney and seek a legal remedy that would force LAPD to offer them a job.  IMHO, even if a person had the resources to take the LAPD to court, it would be a monumental waste of time and money.   

What these guys need to do is move on past this small setback, learn from it, and apply to a different police agency.  Knowing what they know now, this time around they will be able to approach the polygraph as an informed person that knows how to ensure that they are not another false positive victim, by using countermeasures.   

There are plenty of outstanding police departments in California; LAPD is not the be all, end all.  All of you guys out there that got burned on the polygraph at LAPD apply to another department, and get hired.....you can do it!

Kona

Here's the stuck record again.

SUE THE POLYGRAPHER AND HIS DEPARTMENT - SUE THE POLYGRAPHER AND HIS DEPARTMENT----. They have accused you of wrong doing. Make them prove the charges in a court of law. Has anyone stopped to think, when they accuse you of dealing or taking drugs, etc., etc., why they don't arrest you on the spot and file formal charges? I have never heard or read of this ever happening. That would be a crucial question in court.

Just complaining about it on these or other boards is not going to solve your porblems

I feel for you.  I too, as so many other qualified applicants, was dq'ed solely on a b.s. polygraph score.  I think your situation is one of the most unfortunate ones I've heard.  You basically were ready to start the academy, then the bottom fell out because of your polygraph alone.  Damn those polygraphers to Hell.  They do far more harm in this world than good.

Thank you for the replies. The reason I ask, is because I was one of the first group of recruits to be polygraphed for LAPD. They passed all of my information through the civil commision, hired me, and as if it were an after thought, my background investigators supervisor called  and asked if I had received a polygraph. I told the supervisor that I wasn't even aware that a polygraph was part of the testing. He informed me that they had recently implemented the poly as part of the testing. Well needless to say, my background investigator, background supervisor and civil commission all thought I was worthy of being an officer for the department (I'm assuming this to be true because I received an academy date), but the almighty polygraph examiner informed me that I wasn't. I have since read some articles on the LAPD polygraph testing and from what I gather the examiners are failing qualified recruits at a tremendous rate. I can't help but feel that these examiners are just setting a percentage of recruits they will pass, and the others they just throw to the dogs. Maybe this is how they show their worth??

Well said Kona!

Jack T,

A person's lack of knowledge concerning the polygraph, or the techniques employed by the polygrapher can only work against them.  The polygrapher uses your ignorance against you as he explains to you how it is impossible to beat his machine.  I swear to God, my polygrapher went on for over an hour explaining how the machine couldn't be beat, and that now was the time to confess to anything that I may have forgotten.  I almost felt like making up some small indiscretion just to shut him the hell up.  IMHO, a person is always better off being informed.   

The polygrapher only exists to interrogate you, expose any inconsistencies in your background questions, and extract any kind of confession from you.  He utilizes the polygraph as an intimidation device to help get that confession.   

To answer your question, they don't want you to be educated on their techniques so they can get that confession.

Kona

To use an analogy, in The Wizard of Oz, the Great and Mighty Oz turned out to be an old, pathetic little man ("ignore that man behind the curtain"). Same idea in polygraphy. Ignore the sad, pathetic little polygraphers and be more concerned about the great and mighty powers of the polygraph. The power of Oz and the power of polygraphy share something: both are fakes.

Why is it that polygraph examiners are concerned about whether or not a person that is going to be tested has done research, or "looked" at any websites that concern polygraphs? Is it because they are concerned that you might fail the test, or is it because they don't want you to be educated on the techniques of their training?