xenonman wrote on Mar 28^th, 2017 at 3:52am:


You're right Xenonman.  The people running the AMA had married parents that taught them right from wrong and the virtue of loyalty going both ways in an organization, unlike the reptiles that run our government.

Wandersmann wrote on Mar 27^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:


I'm sure that the AMA would never allow that to happen.   

Ex Member wrote on Mar 27^th, 2017 at 7:55pm:


Better yet, let's just polygraph the doctor.  If he doesn't pass the polygraph then he loses his license to practice medicine.  That is exactly what happens to honest patriots in the intelligence community every day.  Let's spread this fun around.  Everyone in our society needs to experience it.  Then it will be outlawed for sure. 

Quote:


What you omitted seems to be key to your situation.

What kind of drug was it? Was it oxycodone or some other drug which has a high value on the black market?

Your use of passive voice is interesting, "had been stolen." Who stole it?

How did the thief get access to it? burglary?, purse/backpack snatching? or?

Did you file the police report immediately upon noticing the medication was stolen?---or only after someone else had gotten into trouble with the police?

If the police suspect you may have been pushing your prescription medications, then George is right, you need a lawyer, your doctor too.

Quote:


In this situation you would be wise to refuse any demand that you submit to a CVSA "test" and, furthermore, to speak no further with the police unless you have a lawyer with you.

Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) is junk science invented by a huckster. It is used by police as a pretext for interrogating suspects without a lawyer present. The outcome may very well be a scripted part of the interrogation plan. (The interrogator will tell you you failed and badger you for a confession, using the "test" results as leverage.)

For more about the charlatan who created CVSA see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3E_2KTxI0

For more about why you should not speak with the police at all, let alone submit to an interrogation masquerading as "test," see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Quote:


Once you have been charged (if that happens), contact the public defender in your jurisdiction ASAP.
Take NO tests of any kind.  Once LE has "determined" that you're guilty, they are going to use all their resources to push for your arrest and eventual conviction!

Confess.

I filed out a police report of my medication had been stolen from me and I signed a paper saying everything I said was the truth and now I got a call saying they want me to come in and take a CVSA test down at the station. What if the test says I failed it when I am actually telling the truth? I have bad nerves anyways around cops. I don't want to take the test and I don't have the money to hire a laywer but main question since I signed that form that said I said everything was the truth of what I was saying am I going to be forced to take this CVSA test anyways? Please help quick I need to know what to do in this type of situation! The guy told the cops I was selling the pills to him which I wasn't he just stole them and is trying to make me out to be the bad guy so he gets off the hook what should I do?

xenonman wrote on Jun 10^th, 2013 at 1:06am:

xenonman wrote on Jun 10^th, 2013 at 1:06am:

Marlene,

Your friend would be wise to refuse the polygraph. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis, and a suspect's "failing" the "test" can be part of an investigator's interrogation plan.

Moreover, your friend would be well advised not to speak with anyone from law enforcement at all, for reasons explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

my friend has been accused of stealing money from a girl that is jealous bc he decided not to date him...now she has filed a charge and he has been asked to take a polygraph...it appears that the detective and the accuser are personal friends and this story has been fabricated to make him look bad! Pls advise?

James, I am not sure about NY State, but I know of other State Dept. of Corrections which employ the polygraph to monitor parolees/probationers' keeping to the terms of their release. It's a dog's life, so you may want to keep your hands in your pockets to be safe.

I'm currently on parole in NYC.2 yeas ago while on parole I was arrested and charged with forcible touching.Subsequently the criminal charge was dismissed in my favor.Because I was on parole I received a parole violation. After a final parole hearing that administrative law judge dismissed all of the parole violation charges surrounding the forcible touching charge and stated that he found insufficient corroborating evidence to support the allegation.I was recently told by my parole officer that I would have to submit to a polygraph test.Is this legal???

pailryder wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:


But not at a "three-letter" agency!  lol

T.M. Cullen wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:00am:

NEVER cooperate with the police if you are the subject of an investigation!
They can lie to you all they want, and it's all perfectly legal.
Your only right is to remain silent. NEVER be afraid to exercise that right!
Remember:  You can not talk or explain your way out of ANYTHING!  The criminal justice system is adversarial IN NATURE, REGARDLESS OF HOW FRIENDLY OR DUMB THE OFFICERS MAY TRY TO APPEAR!

George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 7:48am:


This is why the myth that the polygraph is a "lie detector" is so dangerous! It is nothing but a psychological billy club used to coerce a person into confessing!  And it is FOOLISH & DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as a "lie detector, or even as a prop for an interrogation because, as this article demonstrates, many of the confessions obtained by polygraph interrogations are false confessions!  One can only hope that the truth about how corrupt and abusive these polygraph operators, (interrogators), are will be exposed and that the use of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture will finally be stopped entirely!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-chicago-police-polygraph-unit-met-20...
 
Chicago mother Nicole Harris was convicted in 2005 of murdering her 4-year-old son. A federal appeals court overturned her conviction, and her case was dismissed in June after the Cook County state's attorney's office completed a comprehensive reinvestigation. (Nancy Stone, Chicago Tribune / February 25, 2013) 
By Duaa Eldeib, Chicago Tribune reporter
November 29, 2013
After decades of relying on controversial polygraph examinations to help solve crimes, the Chicago Police Department has drastically scaled back on giving so-called lie-detector tests in the course of criminal investigations.
In what appears to be a shift in focus, the department's polygraph unit examiners, who previously worked under the forensic services division, have been relocated to human resources, where their primary responsibility is administering the tests to police officer candidates. The examiners' new unit follows industry standards for conducting polygraphs.
The move was said to be temporary, but one year later, the examiners are still with the personnel unit.
"The temporary detail was made to address the backlog in pre-employment screenings needs," police spokesman Adam Collins said. "There hasn't been a move away from polygraphs as a part of criminal investigations."
Collins did not say how long the three examiners would remain with human resources, which has seen a significant increase in the number of pre-employment polygraphs. He said only that it would be "until the need has been met." The examiners continue to conduct criminal polygraphs as the need arises, Collins said.
Yet the number of criminal polygraphs has dropped considerably, from about 400 in 2011 to 50 in the first eight months of 2013.
The timing of the examiners' move to the personnel unit corresponded with a Tribune investigation into the polygraph unit's role in obtaining false confessions. Critics decried the department's use of polygraphs, claiming the examiners employed it as an interrogation prop to extract confessions. Some detractors also questioned the validity of the polygraph itself, calling it junk science. Polygraphs have played a role in several Chicago murder prosecutions that unraveled.
At the time of the Tribune's investigation, published in March, police extolled the polygraph as a valuable investigative tool in criminal cases.
But the Tribune found that Chicago police did not adhere to voluntary published standards for how polygraphs are administered or scored. For example, major industry groups strongly encourage numerical scoring of polygraph exams, but it wasn't until 2012 that Chicago police said their examiners had recently begun employing the practice. Before that, one examiner agreed in a sworn deposition that he scored a test simply by "eyeballing it."
The Tribune also found that the city has paid out millions of dollars in damages in polygraph-related cases. The Tribune examined the role of the polygraph unit in the cases of six defendants who went on to be cleared — five of whom were charged with murder.
One of them was Chicago mother Nicole Harris, who had been convicted in 2005 of murdering her 4-year-old son. A federal appeals court overturned her conviction, and her case was dismissed in June after the Cook County state's attorney's office completed a comprehensive reinvestigation.
"We do not believe that it would be in the interest of justice to proceed on this matter," State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said in a statement at the time.
Harris claimed she falsely confessed to Chicago police examiner Robert Bartik only after he berated her and told her she had failed the polygraph exam, though police records show the test was inconclusive.
Bartik, who in court records denied those claims, declined to comment.
In their role handling pre-employment polygraphs, the examiners now report to a supervisor who is a licensed polygraph examiner, and written procedures dictate that the examiners comply with professional standards, according to police records and officials.
Steven Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern University and expert in false confessions, was part of the team from the university's Center on Wrongful Convictions that represented Harris in her appeal.
Drizin said he believes the department's decision to shift the focus of the examiners "is an admission that their presence in criminal cases, especially homicide cases, is a liability to the prosecution."
"There are legions of false confessions that came about as a result of the introduction of false polygraph results during the course of an interrogation," he added.
The defendants who were later cleared said they had believed the polygraph was a scientific test that would confirm their innocence. They said police told them a polygraph could prove if they were telling the truth. Instead, they alleged that the polygraph examiners manipulated them into falsely confessing and in one case made up a confession.
Collins said the department has not changed its philosophy regarding criminal polygraphs. The decision to move the examiners to the personnel unit was made in October 2012, and the examiners began in the personnel unit the following month, he said. At the time the Tribune's investigation was published months later, department officials denied the unit's focus or responsibilities had shifted.
Now, when a request for a criminal polygraph comes through, arrangements are made to allow the examiners to assist the detectives, department officials said.
In 2011, Chicago police conducted 402 criminal polygraphs. In 2012, that number dropped to 169, according to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Examiners from the Cook County sheriff's office, who have been called in on occasion to assist with criminal polygraphs, have conducted seven exams for Chicago police since 2012, a spokeswoman for the sheriff's office said.
"An increase or decrease is merely a reflection of the number of requests that came in" and not a change in strategy, Collins said.
The commander who oversees forensics has called Bartik, who was involved in five of the six cases, an "excellent examiner." Bartik previously testified that 111 people confessed to him in a five-year period, prompting a defense expert to call his record "unprecedented." In court records, Bartik has denied any wrongdoing.
deldeib@tribune.com
Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

One can NEVER "prove" their innocence to the cops.  If they mention a polygraph, tell them what they shou ld do with it.

Seriously,

You should cancel any appointment for a polygraph "test." Polygraphy has no scientific basis, and as used by police, it is often little more than a pretext for interrogating a suspect without a lawyer. Interrogation tactics can be coercive and manipulative, sometimes leading to false confessions. Even innocuous statements have the potential to be harmful to you, even though you're innocent. You have nothing to gain and potentially much to lose by submitting to a polygraph interrogation.

You would be wise to get a lawyer and not talk to police again without your lawyer present. Any competent lawyer will tell you not to submit to a polygraph "test," and you can tell the police that you're declining the polygraph based on your lawyer's advice.

I am asking for help, I went over to my ex's Tuesday night and was getting picked up after a few hrs. I was only there for 2 hrs but he had gone to bed early for work the next morning. I was only there cause my family was having some issues and i needed a place to go to for a bit. so after i was picked up, i went home went to bed and woke up the next morning to a phone call at 5:30 am from him saying i stole 2000.00 from him! I was shocked! I did not steal from him. He was in his room with the door locked the whole time i was there. his wallet was in his room with him. Then a few hrs later the police where on the phone asking me to come in for questioning. So of couse i went in, and told my story and after i was done got told that "its looks like i took it" So the next day the trooper called back again but this time asking if i would take a polygraph test. I said yes, of course! But now looking up online, im not sure if i should!! I have a big anxiety issues and don't want to have it come back that i lied! And if it did could they charge me?

Pailryder,

Actually, Graw indicated in his first post that the police had asked if he would take a polygraph. The employer also asked him to take a polygraph (and that demand may have itself been a violation of EPPA). I disagree with you on the question of whether the employer's action in assigning Graw to a more-difficult-to-reach site was discriminatory. It seems to me that it pretty clearly is.

Twoblock wrote on Dec 13^th, 2012 at 9:10pm:


Or simply find another job.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:03am:


The police do not have anything to do with this request.  This request came from the employer, who has every right, even a responsibility, to investigate the theft of a customer's property from a vehicle on his premisis.  

My point is take or refuse, pass or fail, the employee still has all EPPA protections!

The employer appears to have complied with the federal law.  The employer did not discharge, displicine or discriminate.  The employee still has the same job at the same pay, he is simply assigned to a different location.  The employer will show that all employees are subject to reassignment and other employees have been reassigned before.  Thus, no discrimination.

And by the way, graw, you have a weak case, but an attorney is not required.  If you feel you were wronged, you can file a compliant by simply contacting DOL Wage and Hour Division yourself. 

Graw,

It seems to me that your employer has violated section 2002(3)(A) of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for an employer "to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against...any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test..." I agree with Twoblock, you should talk to a lawyer about this.

Pailryder,

I think it's insidious to equate a person's refusing to submit to a fraudulent procedure such as polygraph "testing" with "refusing to cooperate with the investigation." On the contrary, I'd say that the police's resorting to the magical thinking of polygraphy constitutes refusal to conduct a proper investigation.

pailryder

In all my days of hiring and firing people, I have never fired a person without evidence in my hand and made a full explaination to the person why he's being fired. If he had a good reason in his defense, I always listened got to the bottom of the problem. Managers who don't do this is wrong and most always have a personal vendetta against the employee. The court system is for people seeking justice. The other alternative is take a .357 in and blow his brains out. I will seek the court system of justice every time.

graw

The fact that he replaced you the same day convicts him of retalliation. Talk to a lawyer about this.