Hello Heather,

I'm sorry to hear about the difficult situation your friend is in. Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, especially for someone on multiple medications that can affect results. Many people in similar positions have experienced the same issues: failed tests due to medical conditions or the test's inherent flaws, leading to probation violations that feel more like punishment for not "passing" a junk science tool than for any actual behavior.

Regarding your main question: Has anyone ever successfully filed a motion to remove polygraph tests from probation conditions in Texas, particularly for sex offense cases?

From what I've seen on this board and in related discussions: Some people have had limited success challenging polygraph conditions through their attorney, especially if they can document medical issues that interfere with the test (e.g., via psychiatrist/psychologist letters explaining how meds or mental health conditions can cause false positives or inconclusive results). In other words, if you have a detailed, articulated case with a detailed history, you could find success, but it's rare.

In Texas, probation conditions are set by the judge, so a motion to modify probation terms is the usual route. Arguments often focus on:

• The unreliability of polygraphs (cite the National Academy of Sciences 2003 report or APA statements on their lack of scientific validity for this use)
• Medical/psychological contraindications making the test unfair or impossible to pass reliably
• The treatment provider kicking him out solely for failing the poly, framing it as the system creating a violation loop rather than addressing actual risk

Success stories are rare because courts love polygraphs for sex offender supervision, but there have been cases where conditions were modified after repeated failures, especially if the person has strong compliance otherwise, a good lawyer, and evidence that the poly is counterproductive (e.g., increasing anxiety/PTSD symptoms without improving public safety).

Practical steps I'd suggest for your friend: Get a new/stronger evaluation from a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist familiar with polygraph limitations and his specific diagnoses/medications. Have them write a detailed letter explaining why polygraphs are contraindicated in his case.

His lawyer should file a motion to modify the probation conditions to remove or replace the polygraph requirement (perhaps with other monitoring tools like regular therapy progress reports, GPS if relevant, or nothing if risk is low).

Document everything: every failed poly, every medication, every instance where the treatment provider refused to continue without a passed poly. This shows the catch-22.

Consider appealing the probation violation itself on due process grounds if the only "violation" was not attending due to the poly barrier.

If your friend (or you) can share more details about the exact probation conditions or what the lawyer has already tried, people here might have more targeted suggestions.



Take care,

Anonymous Deputy

Important disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm a cop, and this isn't legal advice. Texas sex offense probation is tough, and Johnson County might have specific practices. Your friend needs an experienced criminal defense or post-conviction attorney who knows Texas probation modification procedures and has dealt with sex offender supervision challenges.

The Lawrence Times reports that David Graham, whom some may know from our monthly online meetups, will be giving a talk titled "The Trouble with Polygraphs" at the Lawrence, Kansas public library tomorrow, 1 April 2026, from 7-8 PM:

Quote:

Hello Everyone,

I am looking for some guidance for my friend.

He was previously a Sherrif's Deputy in Johnson County Texas.  He was diagnosed with PTSD after a shooting incident and is no longer in law enforcement as of January 2012.   

He has been diagnosed with PTSD, B-polar with psychosis, Extreme Anxiety and Depression and is currently on disability.  Fast forward to June 2019, he was arrested and charged with 2 counts of sexual contact with a minor.  The charges dated back to July of 2017 and were made by his stepdaughter.  He and his wife separated in December 2018.  She was also charged with sexual contact with a minor.  They had sent the daughter to live with her father in fall 2017 due to her promiscuity and lack of control.  There was another younger son that stayed with them with no issues.  The wife and her ex were embattled in a child support fight as her ex felt since they both had one of the children, child support should not be paid.  In May 2019, he traveled to Johnson County to file the sexual contact charges and took custody of the son.

The case was caught up in court until June of 2024, yes 5 years, before my friend took a plea deal at the advice of his lawyer.  He was encouraged to take the plea as he was prior law enforcement, and he was threatened with a 40-year sentence if it went to trial.  Due to his medical issues, he did not at the time understand what he was agreeing to.  Part of his his please is took submit to polygraph test and to pass them.  He was recently sanctioned for failing two polygraphs.  He maintains that he is innocent and never had and sexual contact with her.  He is on about a dozen medications that can impact polygraph result.

My question is, has anyone been able to file a motion to remove polygraph tests, or the passing of polygraph tests, from their probation conditions? Technically he was violated for not attending sex offender treatment but that was due to his leader kicking him out of class and not allowing him to return unless he passed the polygraph exam.

I appreciate any help and guidance you can provide.  Thank you.

George,

Thank you — I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response and your encouragement over the years. While I was certainly disappointed that the Court declined to hear the case, I also recognize that meaningful change rarely happens in a single decision or a single forum. As I mentioned this morning, issues like this tend to move along a longer arc, shaped over time by evidence, awareness, and public understanding as much as by litigation.

One thing I do take some comfort in is that the record now exists. The filings, documentation, and proceedings are part of the public domain, and if they help others better understand both the limitations of the polygraph and the potential human consequences when it is relied upon too heavily, then some good has come from the process.

I also want to take a moment to thank you personally for your steadfast commitment over the years to standing up for individuals who have been harmed by the misuse and overreliance on polygraph testing. Your work has provided an important resource, not only for those directly affected, but also for anyone trying to understand the broader policy and scientific issues involved. I know firsthand how valuable that support and information can be.

I have already begun reaching out to several national investigative reporters in the hope that broader awareness may develop around the policy issues involved — particularly the federal government’s continued exemption from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Ultimately, I believe meaningful reform will likely require legislative attention, and public understanding is often the first step toward that kind of change. My hope is that continued discussion, combined with scientific research and real-world experiences, may eventually lead to a reconsideration of that exemption.

I’m also continuing to work on the book, which I hope will contribute to a thoughtful and constructive conversation about both the human and institutional dimensions of polygraph policy.

I’m also very grateful for the support and knowledge shared by members of this community. Whatever happens next, I remain convinced that raising awareness and asking difficult questions is worthwhile.

— John

John,

I very much regret that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear your case. I'm thankful for all you have done over the years to help call public attention to the need for polygraph policy reform. No doubt the public filings associated with your administrative and judicial cases will continue to prove helpful for others involved in or contemplating polygraph-related litigation.

I look forward to reading your forthcoming book, which I'm sure will be of interest to many and will help to shape public discourse on polygraph policy.

I learned today that the Supreme Court denied my petition for certiorari. Obviously, I’m disappointed. After everything that has happened over the past several years — professionally, medically, and personally — I had hoped the Court might take the opportunity to address the larger legal questions raised by my case.

That said, I also understand the reality of how the Supreme Court works. The Court denies the overwhelming majority of petitions it receives each year, and a denial does not mean the justices agreed with the lower courts or rejected the underlying issues. More often, it simply means the Court chose not to take this particular case as the vehicle to address them.

From the beginning, my goal has never been limited to a personal outcome. What I experienced exposed, at least for me, is a structural problem: the gap between what people assume that the polygraph can measure, and what it actually does measure, and the very real human consequences when institutions rely on them too heavily. I hoped the Court might clarify the boundaries between agency discretion and the legal safeguards that are supposed to protect employees once they are already inside the system.

One issue that continues to stand out to me is the federal government’s exemption from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). Congress passed the EPPA in 1988 because of widespread concern about the reliability and fairness of polygraph testing in the private sector. Lawmakers recognized that these tests could be misused and could cause significant harm to employees. Yet federal agencies were carved out of those protections, even though the same scientific limitations apply. In my view, that inconsistency deserves serious reexamination. If polygraph testing is considered too problematic to allow broadly in private employment, it raises legitimate questions about why government employees and applicants should be subject to fewer protections rather than more.

Another issue is that the Department of Defense already has internal policies intended to protect employees from unfavorable administrative actions based solely on polygraph results (DoDI 5210.91) and requires that individuals with psychological, emotional, or other mental health conditions that could affect testing be excused from polygraph examinations altogether. The problem, as I experienced it, is not the absence of policy but the failure to follow and enforce it. When those safeguards are not applied in practice, and when there is no meaningful mechanism to ensure compliance, the protections exist only on paper.

For that reason, I believe one constructive path forward is legislative. Ultimately, Congress has the authority to revisit the EPPA exemption and evaluate whether it still makes sense in light of modern scientific understanding and the experiences of those affected. I would encourage anyone who shares concerns about polygraph use to consider engaging with their elected representatives and supporting efforts to review or reform the current framework.

Even though the petition was denied, I don’t see this as the end of anything. Issues like this tend to move along a long arc. Over time, scientific understanding evolves, public awareness grows, and institutions are eventually forced to re-examine practices that once seemed unquestionable. Polygraph skepticism — both in research and in public discussion — is already far more visible than it was decades ago, and I believe that trajectory will continue.

Personally, I intend to keep contributing to that conversation. I’m continuing to work on a book about my experience and the broader legal, scientific, and institutional questions surrounding polygraph use. My hope is that sharing what happened — and what it reveals about the system — may help others in similar situations and encourage more evidence-based approaches in the future.

I want to thank everyone here who has offered support, information, and encouragement along the way. Whatever happens next, I remain convinced that raising awareness and asking difficult questions is worthwhile. Sometimes change doesn’t happen in a courtroom. Sometimes it happens because enough people understand the problem.

— John

A personal statement posted here on AntiPolygraph.org in 2018 yesterday made it to the front page of the popular Hacker News website, where it generated considerable discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47102975

I found this comment by user snickerbockers particularly interesting, as I'm mentioned in it:

Quote:

There's no way anyone could know for sure what polygraph record-sharing arrangements exist between two unnamed counties.

It would be safest to assume that information you provided during your previous polygraph might be made available to those conducting your upcoming polygraph.

A polygrapher's determination that your answers to questions are inconsistent with previous answers could reasonably be expected to have the potential to result in adverse consequences for you.

Hello. I was convicted of possession of _________ (not hard to figure out) back in 2016, and had to take a bunch of polygraphs for Probation of, let’s say County A.

I was convicted again of the same thing, like an idiot, in 2021, and just got out of prison basically. The 2nd instance was committed in County A also, but I paroled to a nearby county- County B.

I am probably going to have to do a history polygraph again, probably at a completely different location, especially since I’m not technically allowed to go out of the county. Very small chance I foresee them taking me to the old place.

I am wondering however, if they will have a record of the old polygraph results. Again, the 1st one was for county probation, in County A. The second one will be for State Parole, taken most likely at a location in County B, where I live. However, the crime, both times, was committed in County A.

There are things I’d probably answer differently after thinking about things, and I don’t remember exactly how I answered the old questions. I’m worried they could cross-reference the old results if they had access to them and I’d fail just by the inconsistency even if I was being honest.

Does anyone know if either parole, or this polygraph place will have access to the old records & cross-reference them? The latest polygraph I took was from like 8 years ago also. Thank you.

Guest posting to this message board has been disabled in order to stop automated spam postings. To discuss polygraph matters anonymously and without creating any account, join our SimpleX Chat group.