Hi John,

Please don't entertain the notion that a polygraph can detect lying. Remember, you're a prospective law enforcement official and as such should be professionally and privately skeptical of 'mind reading machines'. They don't exist John. While I concur that lying about one's past is reprehensible, the polygraph has nothing to do with whether or not one is being truthful on one's application. I can assure you this: If you employ countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, you're sure to pass the polygraph. Whether or not you have the right stuff for a career as a LEO I don't know, but you don't want to entrust that decision in part to the lime-green leisure suit wearing types who sit behind the magic spirit box. They're tin gods John, and the information available on this site will arm you against them.

Hi John,

Please don't entertain the notion about lying. Remember, you are a prospective law enforcement officer and lying and law enforcement is not synonymous. Just tell the truth about your past experiences with marijuana. A lot of times, it's up to a particular agency as to what they decide to do during their hiring process. I can assure you of this, if you are less than candid during your application process,you then allow yourself no opportunity to succeed. On top of that, you will more than likely fail the polygraph examination and be DQued. Just be honest and tell the truth. Good luck to you.

Squid -

Go to http://www.michigan.gov/msp ;
select education, training and careers (on the left side of the page)
select MSP recruiting
select examination process

The snippet states:
"The examination process begins with a video based written test. The score you achieve on this examination determines if you will be processed further. You may retake the written examination in an attempt to raise your score no more often than once every six months.

Candidates who meet the established cut-off point for the video based testing will continue in the selection process and are subject to a physical agility test, drug screening, traffic and criminal history checks, initial pre-screening interview, background investigation, background investigation review, and a final oral interview. Candidates must successfully complete all of these steps to be placed on the employment list. Candidates who receive a conditional offer of employment will be invited to participate in medical and psychological testing. Candidates passing these tests will be offered an appointment to the Michigan State Police Training Academy in Lansing contingent upon department hiring needs and position availability."

While it doesn't necessarily spell out p-o-l-y-g-r-a-p-h, I think it is a definite possibility. 

Heck, just call them and ask? If you're worried about your phone number etc, do it from a pay-phone, but this is a good question, and I'm sure not the weirdest one they've received.

HELLO EVERYBODY, ANYBODY KNOW IF MICHIGAN STATE POLICE USE POLY DURING THEIR HIRING PROCESS?

I took a polygraph for a local LE agency today and I was scared to death. I opted to tell the truth about every question I was asked. They asked questions about employee theft and retail theft (off the machine). I have spent the last 9 months in the academy and I have a lot riding on this exam. The polygraph examiner asked me a question like "Other than what you have told me are you withholding any info. about stealing items" I hope this was a control question because I about jumped out of the seat. He only asked me about certain things and not about everything I had ever stolen. i.e. money from my parents, etc.. I thought about it a second and told him no because I had answered him truthfully on the questions he asked me. Does this mean I will most likely appear deceptive or does this mean if I was calmer when I answered the relevant questions I should be Ok? Also, I was not given the results. I asked him if I passed and he told me that he had to look over the chart. Is this good or bad. I did some stupid stuff in college but nothing too bad.

Hey folks! It's Dan. I just wanted you to know that I have decided to hold off the Sheriff thing for a while. As you all know, there has been a terrible tragedy in America involving terrorists. Because of these horrible events that took place in this blessed land, I have decided to join the Military instead. I hope someday when (if) I get back, I can continue with my pursuit to be a sheriff. Either way, I'll be serving and protecting America's people. 

"God Bless America"

Wannabe wrote on Sep 10^th, 2001 at 10:20pm:


No need to apologize. I'm glad you believe in Utopia. Perhaps if more people did the world would be a better place (definitely wouldn't be a need for polygraph).  

your right, that was a low blow and I apologize, and just to let you know, I do have alot of respect for your experience, but in my HUMBLE opinion, you do have a better than you attitude, as evidenced your posts.
Quote:

Quote:
 
 

Quote:


like I said, I do respect your experience, but just because someone elses opinion differs from yours, does not make them wrong or incompetent to form their own opinion or blowing smoke up someones skirt. So if you feel the need to continue this childish squabble, it will go unanswered, I feel I justified my opinion, if not, oh well.

but I do apologize for the polygrapher comment, it was below the belt.

peace

Wannabe wrote on Sep 10^th, 2001 at 7:51pm:


Now that's uncalled for!

yeah whatever

btw the pm:

Quote:


is taken into advisement, but just so you know, I am not out to "win" anything, as for handling it, your replies are self defeating so I have nothing to handle.
and if that's friendly advice, you must be a polygrapher LOL


cheers

Wannabe wrote on Sep 8^th, 2001 at 1:00am:


I never claimed to better than anyone. My "attacks" as you call them, have substance, unlike your original comments to Dan. You obviously know you were wrong, so let's just leave it at that. 

Quote:


You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's not based on reality or fact, but we've already been over all of that.

Dan,

I truly wish you luck, let us know how it turns out

I want everyone to know that I came to this site for advice, and no doubt I got it. But I will still continue with the departments' testing process, no matter the outcome. I want the sheriff's dept. to know what I did and know that I accept the responsibility of my wrongdoing. Doing nothing and not continuing with the testing assures me of not getting the job.
At least if I continue, I still might have a chance, depending on how mature and understanding my employer is. 

Thank you for everyones advice and I'll post a reply soon to let you all know how it went.

Dan, I am not and did not attempt to put you down nor judge you, you asked for opinions, I gave mine, it simply appeared to me that you chose to justify your actions HERE not back when you were 18, if you did indeed learn from it then I apologize, but  I would expect the same if I were to come here and say that "I did this.... BUT the guy was a jerk so he deserved it and there was no way to get caught, should I confess?" see my point? if I were to say, " when I was young I did something I didn't get caught for, but learned from it etc.." I would expect different results. 
Pseudo Relevant's holier that everyone's attitude is strikingly similar to that of the polygraph communities which he attacks.
Quote:
I thought that was what he asked us to do.

Again Dan I apologize if I seemed harsh I didn't thnk I had been, I simply said that if this is the way you feel, then I think you should seek another line of work. 

peace

Of all the replies I have recieved, I accept the ones siding with me. Not because I like hearing them, but because they're the only ones that give any reasons without putting down anyone elses. I think that the people who have something bad to say about me have something eating away at their soul, too, but just choose to rag on someone else to make themselves look better. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your replies, but I am saying if you're going to reply to my problem, than direct it to me.

Wannabe wrote on Sep 7^th, 2001 at 3:32am:
 

Nothing. What it refers to is your lack of understanding regarding how the real world is and how the LE community finds qualified applicants.

Quote:


No. What I am implying is that you apparently have no LE experience to draw upon which would allow you to make a thoroughly informed decision. You are trying to determine for others what is and is not an acceptable history based on your own moral standards. Not an entirely bad thing, but not fair or realistic. If what you said to/about Dan is a hard and fast rule (should you be in the position of making any hiring decisions for LE personnel) then your success rate will be very very low.

Examiner,

You wrote:

Quote:


How would you know the reasons for which more examiners do not participate in this message board?

I don't believe I mischaracterized your remarks, and I provided a link to the thread where they appeared so that anyone interested could check. I wrote:

Quote:


When I wrote that in your view, a subject's knowledge of "the lie behind the lie detector" is no barrier to conducting a CQT, I was referring to the following passages from the above-linked thread:

Quote:


and

Quote:


When I wrote that your statements in the same message thread also confirm that whether or not a subject is completely honest with the polygrapher, the polygrapher will lie to and attempt to deceive the subject, I was referring to the following statement you made:

Quote:


I believe that I have neither misunderstood your words nor taken them out of context. If you disagree, please explain.

Wannabe wrote on Sep 7^th, 2001 at 3:27am:


Well, what you see is what you get. You have your opinion based on what I don't know. Mine is based on over twenty years experience in both Federal and Municipal LE, with the last seven years being the senior recruiter and background investigator for my agency. 

Quote:


What? Are you merely a parrot? Do you honestly believe every single police officer in your neighborhood's police department has a spotless record? The fact is, just like Dan, every applicant has made some mistakes, whether it's drug experimentation, petty theft, vandalism, etc. Utopia doesn't exist. There aren't any perfect cops, anywhere. If you take a real look at the person instead of making superficial judgements, you'll find plenty of good qualified people. Those people actually make better officers than those who claim to have never done anything wrong. Why? They tend to show compassion towards the citizens they deal with. They know what it feels like to have done something wrong and can relate better to the wrongdoer. 


Quote:


Are you saying that Dan didn't learn his lesson? Rationalization is natural. It is a self defense mechanism. For you to say that Dan (who went through the natural progression of denying it was "really wrong" for him to take those items, then realizing he was wrong, and subsequently learning from his mistake)  is not credible, you are absurdly out of touch with reality. Confession, though good for the soul, is hard to do sometimes. One of the reasons for that is... a person must realize he/she was wrong (something most people hate to admit to themselves or anybody else). Once they know in their heart they're wrong, the struggle turns to how to deal with it. To make peace they must confess to someone. If it is suppressed, it won't stay suppressed for long. 

Quote:


Again the parrot... There alot of "real winners" in my agency. We have officers from every walk of life. We don't have a singular mold for our officers. As a matter of fact, those applicants who claim to be "perfect" are scrutinized more closely, because history proves that most everyone has done something wrong at some point in their life. Not only that, people with no life experience dealing with wrongdoing on a personal level tend to be "momma's boys" or "major league suck-ups", bringing strife and unrest to the agency. We don't "play" at law enforcement. It's not a game. The sooner you realize that, the better your chances of making an informed decision about whether you should come here or not.

You know George this is precisely the reason more examiners do not participate in this site.  My statements above have been portrayed out of context.  Anyone who is following this thread, please review the entire comment George refers too in the other thread.

dan,

I've been following the discussion your initial question has sparked, and would like to share some observations here with all.

First of all, the question you initially asked is, "if I answer this truthfully will the sheriffs dept. still concider me or will I have to look for a job somewhere else?" I do not know the answer to this question, but it seems to me that Pseudo Relevant's statement that "[e]very background investigator and polygraph examiner expects you to have stolen something at one point in your life" is about right.

In fact, the probable-lie "control" question "test" (CQT) used by law enforcement agencies in the polygraph screening of applicants is designed to pass through people who would commit petty theft from an employer and then lie about to a background investigator. This is evidenced by the fact that one of the most popular probable-lie control questions used in pre-employment polygraph screening is, "Other than what you told me, did you ever take anything of value that did not belong to you?"

I find it perverse that persons who bare their souls to their polygraphers, and then answer "control" questions like the one above with a clean conscience, are likely to become false positives (and, in many cases, to have their admissions blown out of all proportion).

Note that the "complete honesty" approach described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does not mean allowing your polygraph interrogation to become a confessional. It means being completely honest with your polygrapher about your knowledge of polygraphy. Should you choose this approach, bear in mind our warning regarding the risks involved:

Quote:


In another message thread ("CM advice on dealing with DI results misguided"), Examiner confirmed that in his view, a subject's knowledge of "the lie behind the lie detector" is no barrier to conducting a CQT. And be aware (as also confirmed by Examiner's statements in the aforementioned message thread) that whether or not you are completely honest with your polygrapher, your polygrapher will lie to and attempt to deceive you.

one more thing. regardless of wether or not I am already an officer, exactly what does that have to do with my ability to distinguish between right and wrong? Are you implying that ONLY police officers are capable of determining ones fitness for a career in LE?

exactly the type of responce I would expect from someone who says "pull my finger". Good Pseudo Relevant, I hope morre people that think they can justify the crimes they commit get hired in YOUR neighborhood. I think I made it pretty clear that indiscretions made while young and still learning about life are a differrent story, PROVIDED, a lesson was learned and if that was the case, dan would not be sitting here saying at first that he thought it was ok because.... then turning around and saying how sorry he was and that he learned his lesson.


and ummmm Pseudo Relevant are you a cop and if so where, I want to be sure never to enter your jurisdiction, must be some real winners there.

Thank you for your input, Pseudo Relevant. By the way, I like your quote, "Pull my finger, not my leg."   

Dan,

Wannabe and Examiner are blowing smoke up your skirt on this. Every background investigator and polygraph examiner expects you to have stolen something at one point in your life. No one since Christ walked this earth has been perfect, so don't make yourself out to be. Honesty is the best policy. You obviously have matured since you "stole" those items. If the department isn't intelligent enough to see that, they don't deserve to have you as an officer. There are plenty of departments out there that will give you a fair shake. Sure they'll ask you about the thefts and they'll be point blank tough questions. Answer truthfully and you'll be okay. 

Wannabe: If you are a law enforcement officer already, congrats. If not, you are out of your league telling others who should and should not seek a career in LE. 

Examiner: You're just protecting your facade of a profession. Your lies and lack of remorse for screwing up peoples dreams is more disturbing to me than petty theft. How many dollars are you taking from people like Dan because you are on your "holier than thou" pedestal?  Crawl back under that rock you came from until you learn how to play nice.

On second thought. On the top of this page, there was a person who had used dope, which is a drug. Drugs alter the mind and make people do things and say things that they wouldn't do or say in their right mind. I have never done any drugs in my life and don't ever plan to. The reason I bring this up is because if I were on drugs at the time I stole those sandwiches, some people would say that I wasn't in my right mind and I shouldn't be written up for anything, and yes, there are people out there who would say that! I, however, was in my right mind and want to take RESPONSIBILITY for my actions. What I did was wrong but I still want to pursue my interests in law enforcement. I can understand if they don't hire me, but I wouldn't understand if they don't let me explain myself. Everybody makes at least one bad mistake in their life. Take the first woman, for example!