I was disqualified two weeks after taking the PQE. I told the truth, it was all i can give. Yea, there were somethings i stated that i wasn't proud of, but people change and grow into better people. The LAPD background investigators didn't give me much consideration. I went through alot to gather all of my documents, i feel slightly cheated. We fall... but we have to get back up and push harder.

Quote:


Uhhh... Did Condit get "fired"? With all the lies this guy is telling he's planning to run for re-election. Slick Willy never got fired either. He's been lying since birth.  Maybe the only things the polygraph doesn't work on is sex and murder cases, right OJ? Condit? Hmmm... makes one wonder.

[quote author=wannabe link=board=share&num=989357749&start=0#36 date=08/24/01 at 00:35:20]
Cheyenne,

I see your point, but what do most people think about lying salesmen?  AND there are laws to protect consumers, what recourse does an innocent person wrongly accused of lying have against a polygraher? 
[B/]
Gosh I am writing long notes.Sorry.You asked about lying salesman.,,,I did not give them the support that they need.The Car Dealer sets the system and if it is thinly disguised as fact? The poor salesman is not going to get a paycheck.Everybody hates car salesmen. It feels awful that the owner had no faith in my abilities and forced me into the "system". I did not sell six trucks in six days because the owner had anything to do with it.It was the Desk Manager and the Service writers and Mechanics who work behind the scenes.My knowledge of the Trucks and my faith in the product.Salesman in the Car busness are terribly maligned and abused.They are forced by Managemnent to lie to make a profit.You either play ball on their team or you got big problems.
[B]

And yes UC cops frequently have to lie tocriminals in order to keep from compromising their cover, so the wrongly accused who get their dreams smashed by a polygraphers OPINION should be compared to the criminal element that UC cops deal with.....sounds fair and just to me.
[B/]

You are correct regarding the wrongly accused.There is definately something wrong with being hammered on by the Polygraph and then the second day of work the Sargent tells you to lie well about something on a Case.In positions where they HAVE to lie ?Make it a positive instead of a negative and as you say having their dreams crushed.Hey?The guy is a great liar so put him in this capacity or that job.
We are getting way too politically correct.If they tell one lie and they are booted....? Darn it....A Congressman is caught in a lie?He is so very fired. Police Cheif tells a lie?He is flat fired. People need to grab ahold of themselves and stand for what they believe in.I think the Constitution is being maligned and I hate that.....a lot.

Wannabe wrote on Aug 24^th, 2001 at 7:35am:

Cheyenne,

I see your point, but what do most people think about lying salesmen?  AND there are laws to protect consumers, what recourse does an innocent person wrongly accused of lying have against a polygraher? And yes UC cops frequently have to lie tocriminals in order to keep from compromising their cover, so the wrongly accused who get their dreams smashed by a polygraphers OPINION should be compared to the criminal element that UC cops deal with.....sounds fair and just to me.

AMM wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2001 at 8:53pm:


Hello AMM, thnak you.I am on a writing very long notes roll and I am going to try to keep it short.
The nagging thought that also comes to mind on Polygraphs is the Constitution.The very idea of assuming from the get go we are lying.
Let me explain.If I were to say on a group of people who have made their living lying and no one seems to question it much?Car dealers and salesman.Many LEO and car salesman are intertwined in a habit to make a paycheck based on lying.Undercover LE has to lie to work the Case.A car salesman who has worked in the business for a lot of years can lie like velvet.
Then there are those who have no conscience.None.

How do you enter that equation in?

Cheyenne War Horse:

You may have already learned via the Antipolygraph.org website that mandatory polygraphs for all LAPD candidates were instituted in February 2001.  All candidates, lateral or off the street are required to submit to and pass a polygraph before they are hired.  The use of the polygraph was recommend following the "Rampart" scandal.

Very respectfully,

AMM

[quote author=George Maschke link=board=share&num=989357749&start=0#30 date=08/20/01 at 02:07:18]


The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) applies to federal agencies only. For example, you could not request a document from the Los Angeles Police Department based on the FOIA. However, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does pertain to governmental agencies in the state. I believe most other states have similar statutes to facilitate public access to governmental information.


Thank you for helping me understand it.I have never dealt with FOIA in CA or the LAPD Law Enforcement Records.As a Special Feild Investigator in the private sector the minute the Case Files were put my desk I filled out the FOI at the P.O. and once I recieved it back I began the Case work.They no longer comply with doing those searches and after talking to the Postmaster General at a meeting,I understand why.Domestic disputes and Mothers disappearing with their children.

I want to apologize on the long notes.I edited it and will try to stay on the subject closer.Mkay?

[quote author=Fred F. link=board=share&num=989357749&start=0#1 date=05/08/01 at 20:08:17]


Dzalez,

A couple of questions. First, most candidates for LAPD are not subjected to polygraphs unless the investigator finds something in your background application that raised a red flag. I may well be wrong but I have many friends who have applied for LAPD and NOT been polygraphed. Are you already an officer doing a lateral transfer?



I was reading with interest about the LAPD and Polygraphs.
I always thought they were a tool used with the background checks and all other Interviewing to determine Officer-Candiate applicants for hiring? 

At the FBI and DEA and BATF and Secret Service and U.S. Marshals?I would expect it mandatory.It should done periodically so they don't get into the habit of lying as they do have to do on their jobs a lot. Ex Director Louis J. Freeh and the new Director Robert Meuller III should have absolutely no hesitation being Polygraphed.But also? They should be made to hold the Eagle Feather symbol and of the great Grizzly and swear on it to be truthful.Both National Treasures.I did think Director Meullers III reply to the Senate regarding if he passed the Polygraph was inappropriate and not truthful.Just my opinion.His responsibilities are way too important to this Country and the Tribes to be playing footsie with Congress.Or the Tribes.

The Tribes have a absolute and legal and ethical right to know the FBI and other Federal LEO's will treat them with fairness and honesty and integrity.The Feds have a huge responsibility to protect the Tribes in a Federal Trust and Treaty obligation.Feds don't? I am on the phone and writing Letters.I don't like seeing the Tribes ignored or have excuses made to them. Being a war horse has no perks.

I know some FBI Agents that are in the big time trouble with me for lying. They dread talking to me because after @25 years of them they know darn well I will bust em for lying to me.Everyone lies and I am no exception but not about important things you don't.The Office of Professional Responsibility can usually turn their (twisted and bizarre and down right scary )thinking around.Or?They can kiss their Federal Badges goodbye.I have never willingly been unfair or untruthful with them. But they think their Badges sometimes make it ok to overload their mouths.I know I am way big trouble with them and who knows?But in the meantime?They better not lie to me.They will be saying...Holy Tatanka (Holy Buffalo)instead of the Tribes saying it.

It is like an article you write for the Newspapers?The professional Journaist will check out 5 sources before they do the piece.

I know the FBI I have had experience with "lie like a train" when they are confronted with direct questions. They "dance" well but they know I can catch them quick like a Bunny in a lie.I caught one Agent and in one millisecond he knew he has "had". A slight "catch" in his voice.Whoops. Gotcha. A couple others know me well after a lot of years.Don't lie to her cause she has addresses and phones numbers and Badge pullers for backup.As does every citizen and both have a right to defend their actions.That is Democracy.

I yelled at one who knew me the longest?He screamed at me.He was not lying.That kind of anger cannot be tricked. What a ongoing fight that is.He ought to know better than to irritate me.Actually as we are talking truth?I am still so mad I may go to his Office and not go in cause if I go in to a Federal Blidg?That FBI man will have me arrested or shot.I know him well...he is lying in wait.Hollar him out and tell him just who he thinks he is messing with.See? They do that and get me wound up.Then he tattles to his big bad FBI friends and then they are mean to me.I am alone and don't touch firearms and he is of many with the big guns.I am just one indian woman.See?He siced the whole Govt. on me.
And again the Tribes are saying.......ya got it....Holy Tatanka.....


Some people are just gifted with the ability to read silent and spoken and body language and facial expressions and get the truth.Actually the American Indians don't even need Polygraph machines.They know how to "read sign" very well.I am trying to not have mine speak.... "dead".

Traditional American Indians use the Eagle Feather to hold when giving evidence instead of the Bible in Court.The Eagle flys highest to the Great Spirit in the Heavens and brings wisdom.Eagle is what the Tribes hold sacred.It is of course what the Federal Govt. holds sacred the Federal Law Enforcment and Dept of Justice also honor it.


I know this is long but I was asked to state my feelings about Polygraphs.By the time the FBI reads this they will be in the War Room of the Pentagon plotting against me.Run?Is not EVEN in my vocabulary.I am from a Military family....Semper Fi....Always Faithful...USMC....Mohawk/Mohican...American Indian..

Quote:


Cheyenne_war_horse, the language of the Freedom of Information Act only allows you to request information being kept by federal agencies.  Therefore, you cannot request information from the LAPD under it--the reason being because the LAPD is not a federal agency.

Fortunately, California (like most states) has it's own freedom of information laws that apply to state and local agencies.

Cheyenne War Horse wrote on Aug 20^th, 2001 at 8:44am:


The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) applies to federal agencies only. For example, you could not request a document from the Los Angeles Police Department based on the FOIA. However, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does pertain to governmental agencies in the state. I believe most other states have similar statutes to facilitate public access to governmental information.

Under the CPRA, copy costs may be charged, but not necessarily. For example, no copy costs were charged in connection with two recent AntiPolygraph.org CPRA requests for documents used in the LAPD an LASD polygraph programs.

[quote author=George Maschke link=board=share&num=989357749&start=0#2 date=05/09/01 at 01:02:38]

You should also seek copies of your entire applicant file, including all information related to your polygraph interrogation. California has its own version of the Freedom of Information Act that you should be able to use to request this information.

I am new here and was reading all the notes. I am confused about something.Why would CA have their own FOIA version.The FOIA is a Federal Act.Am I missing something in the way you said it? Is there a fee for using it?

John wrote on Jul 20^th, 2001 at 4:50pm:


Obviously only if they need a good polygraphist 

"D,"  if you were told you flunked the polygraph examination and you felt that you were telling the truth, then why even ask if you can be re-tested. Evidentally, you are not too convinced that you really didn't pass it.  Or, it could be that you have read the book "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" and will try to use some of the suggested countere measures.  When you took the polygraph examination for the LAPD, you lied and flunked. Whether or not you're disqualified for employment there, yes you are indeed DQed.  Why would a police department hire a liar?   ??? ???

Dzalez read about my polygraph saga under "let the witchhunt begin" in another section of the forums. I took a polygraph for a major metropolitan southern californian police force as well. Unfortunately your situation is not unique..this is the kind of junk science they are using these days to filter out recruits. I will be brutually honest..you are going to have a very difficult time appealing your failed poly. I've learned that the law enforcement bureaucracy treats the poly like it's infallible proof. A lot of recruits 50-60% have totally failed their poly with LAPD..i'm not sure what the failure rate is with other CA departments but it has to be pretty high as well. Anything that has to do with the poly is pretty arbitrary and subjective on the polygrapher's "whim"
All I can tell you is to reapply with a different department and try to put it behind you. If you really want to try you can attempt to reschedule another poly and see if they let you.

Good luck..






dzalez wrote on May 9^th, 2001 at 12:35am:

AMM, Fred F., et al.,

I think it would be best to start new message threads on actions we can take regarding LAPD and LASD polygraph policies under the California Polygraph Reform Initiative forum, as our disussion moving well beyond personal polygraph experiences. Please see the new message thread:

LAPD Polygraph Screening -- Let's End It

George & Fred,

I tried to get their (LAPD) policy in writing early on in my letter writing campaign, but didn't have any luck.  I asked my background investigator and his supervisor what the policy was and they didn't have a clue.  This isn't really surprising given the recent institution of polygraphs.  

Yes, I was asked/forced to sign a waiver.  I truthfully don't remember much of the text.  However, the polygrapher did mention that he couldn't proceed with the test unless I signed it.  

In addition to the City Council, I would also advise anyone caught up in a similar situation with the LAPD to write a letter to the Civil Service Commission.  They have a web site:www.lacity.org/PER/Civil.htm and their phone number is 213-847-9107.  Currently, the president of the Commission is Ms. Sharon Schuster.  All the Commisioners are private citizens so don't expect to speak with them directly.  The Civil Service Commission is the entity that approved pre-employment polygraph screening back in January.  I would assume they will be the ones that have to be persuaded to modify or end the policy.

I have had some response from several Councilmember deputies, but I would rather not discuss it until my appeal is processed.  I would hate for anyone to discover my identity during such a sensitive time.  This may sound like I don't have any balls, but you can't be too careful when your future is on the line.

Regardless of the outcome though, I will try my best to provide you with as much information as I can assemble.  Keep up the good work gentlemen.

AMM

Quote:


George,

This is what I believe is the leverage the LASD polygraphers have. When an applicant goes to the prepoly paperwork shuffle the first form given to you is a release of liability. The LASD uses deputies to do their polys.

They tell you that this is to protect them from you seeking retribution against LASD and them personally if you aren't happy with your results. This is the carte blanche that they have to do what they want and and you basically cannot take action against them.

The LASD polygraph is a crap-shoot at best. Your fate depends on the mood of the examiner and how they decide to interpret the "results"

Fred F.

AMM, Fred F., and anyone else who may know,

Were you asked/instructed/pressured to sign a consent and/or waiver form before your pre-employment polygraph exams with either LAPD or LASD (as the case may be)? It would indeed be incongruous if an agency with so much faith in the infallibility of polygraph screening that it provides no appeal process for those accused of deception would also demand that those submitting to polygraphic interrogation sign some kind of waiver of rights.

If LAPD and/or LASD are using such forms, I think it would be useful for us to obtain copies under the California Public Records Act and to make them publicly available here, too.

AMM, Fred F., et al.

It seems that both LAPD and LASD are arbitrarily and capriciously accusing a high percentage of applicants of deception based on pseudoscientific polygraph "tests," maintaining public records to that effect, and denying those accused of due process. This must end. While I've been focusing my efforts toward reform at the federal and state levels, I think effective action at the city and county levels can be taken, and would like to share some ideas in this regard:

• LAPD and LASD polygraph policies need to be made public. I haven't been able to find these policies spelled out in writing. Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), this information should be obtainable. Details on the CPRA are available here:
  
  http://www.thefirstamendment.org/pra.html
  
  AMM, do you think you could obtain the LAPD's written polygraph policy/guidelines? Fred F., could you request the same for LASD?
• We need to educate our city and county representatives about polygraphy and to enlist their support for its abolishment. In March 2000, after the Board of Inquiry into the Rampart Area Corruption Incident came out with its public report recommending that pre-employment (and some post-employment) polygraph screening be adopted, I e-mailed/faxed Mayor Riordan, City Attorney Hahn, the board of police commissioners, and each member of the City Council about polygraphy, alerting them to its lack of validity and the ready availability of effective countermeasures. Apart from an automated reply from one city council member, I received no response. E-mail seems to be an ineffective way of getting one's message across to public officials. A traditional letter delivered by the U.S. Postal Service would be preferable. An even better approach, I think, would be to call your representative's office to schedule an appointment for a face-to-face meeting to discuss polygraph policy.
  
  Contact information for L.A. City Council members is available on the Council's website at:
  
  http://citycouncil.cityofla.org
  
  Contact information for the members of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors is available on the Board's website at:
  
  http://bos.co.la.ca.us
• It would be useful to compile and make public a list of the names of the polygraphers who are administering pre-employment polygraph examinations for LAPD and LASD, and to document any allegations of abuse/misconduct.
• It would be useful to compile and make public a list of the specific questions (relevant, "control," and irrelevant) that LAPD and LASD are asking applicants.
  

I called Phyllis Lynes a second time on Friday, 15 June, to follow up on the message I had earlier left for her, but I again got her answering machine. I left her a new message informing her about the existence of this website and recommending that she download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

AMM,

You are to be commended for your research into the LAPD polygraph fallacy.  If George confirms the numbers that is truly astonishing. You should also notice that the LA County Sheriff did 5000 polys in 1999 and hired only 1700 people. That is saying more than half the people that take the polygraph, which is the major hurdle to their investigations, do not pass.

Keep up your efforts to appeal, If you have some good contacts left in the military, see if they will assist you in your efforts. Also remember to download "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" and get more information and knowledge of what has happened.

Remember, There are people on this board who have passed after failing(Nate)and also who have won on appeals(Melvin). Lets hope you also become a success story

Good Luck

Fred F.

George,

Glad you called her.  She may have to change her number.  In one of our conversations I tried to get the same information across.  She's just as naive as I was. I asked her what she thought the pass rate would be if they went back and poly'd all the recruits for the past few years.  She admitted a 50% failure rate applied in that manner was indeed a scary thought.

I will put together a listing of all the addresses I have and post them later.  For anyone who recently failed, you can contact individual City Councilmembers via email as well.  The City of LA has a website that can link you directly. 

If anyone else has been caught up in this mess, please post your story.  Regardless of my background appeal's outcome, I plan to continue writing letters demanding protection from polygraphs for all government applicants.

Part of the problem is they recently instituted this program and are just starting to see the unintended consequences: false positives.  Like other agencies however, they believe that since they get confessions/admissions from people, it MUST be working.  I was told by an assistant to the Civil Service Commission that the Commissioners attended some demo polygraphs and were confident in them.  I'm sure that they were never presented with information that would call the polygraphs validilty into question.  Likewise, I'm sure the examiners were all very nice during the demo's.  My examiner's first question during our pre-test interview was: "When was the last time you were arrested?"  He followed that up with: "If you had to write a check for everything you've stolen, how much would that amount be?" I couldn't believe it!  He was acting like I was a criminal from the get-go.

Hope to see some more posts from other victims; I know you're out there.

AMM

AMM,

Yes, a pre-employment polygraph failure rate of over 50% seems quite high. I called Phyllis Lynes to confirm, but got her voice mail and left a short message. I'll call again and will make sure that she is informed about "the lie behind the lie detector." If she chooses to cling to the party line and maintain that those who fail must be liars and any countermeasures attempts will be detected, she will not be able to claim she was never warned.

Regarding the following:
Quote:


Could you post a note (perhaps to the California Polygraph Reform Initiative forum?) with the relevant addresses and phone numbers?

In addition, if you (or anyone else) would care to write a detailed statement about your experience with the LAPD polygraph program (you mentioned, for example, that your polygrapher was a "real jerk" -- you may wish to elaborate) for inclusion on the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements page, please send a note to info@antipolygraph.org.

George,

Sure, the head of Public Safety Employment Division is Phyllis Lynes (213)847-9717.  I've had several conversations with her in which I tried to explain that the City's over reliance on the polygraph will certainly cause problems.  Specifically, false positives and more importantly false negatives.  She was amazingly uninformed (but then, so was I before my polygraph "failure").  I asked if she believed the polygraph was infallible since the City's polygraph policy doesn't allow for an appeal or independent polygraph, but she just repeated the party line that they're a very useful investigative tool. 

I also told her that my examiner made a de facto admission that the polygraph could be beaten; he asked me if I'd researched how to defeat the polygraph on the interent. (I hadn't.)  I didn't realize it until later, but the only reason he would ask the question was if he was worried about the use of countermeasures.  I asked her if she believed the City could catch everyone using countermeasures and she said "yes."

I reviewed the notes of our conversation and I will have to ammend the figures from my last post.  She said that approximately 66% of applicants are disqualified in the background investigation phase.  From those that are left, over 50% who take the poly fail.  Seems pretty high, doesn't it?  She told me that she believed all those who failed were most certainly liars!  This figure seems to match one I received from my background investigator.  He mentioned that less than 40% are passing.

I also mentioned that it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed.  The fact that an appeals process doesn't exist means the Civil Service Commission and Personnel Department believes the poly is 100% accurate.  (Remember the Police Department only handles the background investigations, Civil Servants actually do the hiring.  This goes back to the 30's when corrupt cops were hiring their corrupt friends.)  

As I mentioned before, anyone who's wrongly been accused of lying should start writing letters to the City Council.  Write Public Safety, Personnel (the General Manager's name is Margaret Whelan) and the Civil Service Commission. Follow up with phone calls.  The City Council committee assignments will be changed on July 1.  After that find out which members are assigned to the Public Safety Committe, Personnel Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee for Police Reform.  Each committee meets regularly and has a public comments period.

If anyone has any other questions, I'd be more than happy to share my experiences.

AMM