I think you have the right to remain silent, period.

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:18am:


Question,  Can the police interrogate him with a lawyer present after a formal charge or does he still have the right to remain silent. Always been a little sketchy on that point.

to riggs
i hade the same problem wondering what department you went to that dont use polygraph test

thank you

How about you speak up, take a stand and help people instead of cowering and looking for a new job? We can't do it without people like you!

Riggs,

Thank you for your candid statement.  People need to hear it.  If a police detective asks you to take a polygraph to "eliminate" you as a "suspect", they are NOT being honest.  In fact, they are being a bit deceptive,  They really just want a chance to interrogate you without a lawyer present to coerce a confession.  Hopefully, not a false confession.

If the suspect knows they had absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime under investigation, they have nothing to gain by taking a polygraph.

OTOH, if the person has been FORMALLY CHARGED the police can still interrogate the suspect with a lawyer present.

TC

I would ask the person if they were willing to take a polygraph, I never stated it, but I eluded that it would help eliminate them as a suspect.   

I see its (polygraph) only use as being an interrogation tool, one of many (Reids Nine steps being another example of interrogation).   

Although every case is different, If a confession is obtained, further investigative activity may be required to validate the confession.  The pass/fail results of a polygraph exam should be taken with a grain of salt or not at all. The real meat is the post exam interrogation which starts with a direct positive confrontation.   

There are times when a dirtbag needs an interrogation (polygraph or other) to get to the bottom of an issue, however its use for for pre-employment is junk.   

I believe main problem of its overuse is the public's lack of knowledge on the subject and the media's portrayal that its infallible (see its use on Dr Phil, every friggin crime drama etc).  If the truth about polygraphs had as much exposure as its misconceptions, it would be used very differently or not at all.

My two cents.

I've taken three as a cop.  The last time I sat down for one, (after researching the subject thoroughly) I refused to sign the hold harmless agreement, telling him that I did not believe the polygraph was accurate, and that I was not giving up the right to sue in the event his results were not accurate.  He then refused to give me the polygraph, even though I told him that I was willing to take the test, just not give up my right to sue.  It was rather amusing.

Riggs,

Polygraphers who have posted here would disagree with you.  According to them, the polygraph is NOT an interrogation, but is a scientific test for truthfulness.  BTW, the DOD polygraph school includes coverage of an interrogation guide which can be downloaded from the bottom right hand side of the  home page of this website.

They also claim that "false positives" are extremely rare.  Some claim they don't happen at all.  I find that hard to believe when you consider the fact that the polygraph failure rate at the FBI is near 50%.  Half of those applying at the FBI are liars?  That should be reported by the media!

When asking people to take the polygraph, did you say you needed them to do so to "eliminate them as suspects"?

  Would you now agree that most criminal polygraphs are really done to take the opportunity to interrogate suspects WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT?

TC

I took a pre employment polygraph seven years ago and although I "passed" I can say it was a horrible experience, so much so I still cringe to this day.  I can remember coming out of it feeling like a complete piece of s#$t and feeling that I had no business even considering becoming a cop.  I did not get the job but with perseverance I got on later with another department (with no polygraph required).

I have since conducted investigations where I have asked subjects to submit to a polygraph.  In my experience I have spoken at length with polygraphers and observed many polygraphs.  I have come to the opinion that the polygraph procedure is ONLY useful in eliciting confessions, due to the fact that most are scared sh#@less and have been psychologically destroyed and as a result confess.  Although I have not seen false confessions (I sincerely hope) I have seen some deemed deceptive when really not and as a result their name and credibility destroyed.   

One especially comes to mind. The file was a theft of a laptop computer.  The person was a suspect due to right time, place and opportunity.  I observed the polygraph and saw the man psychologically destroyed by the process, with his results being deceptive.  Basically he was accused as being a liar and a thief which had major job consequences.  Approx six months later the computer was found stored in a closet in the place of employment, he had "NOTHING TO DO WITH IT".   

It did not matter, the damage was done.  His credibility was long since destroyed.

I am looking to change employers, however I will never submit to another polygraph exam.  They are junk and the risks are to high.   It saddens me to see how this junk science is being used and lives destroyed.