I took a pre-employment polygraph for a law enforcement position in California. The examiner claimed that I had trouble with a question regarding "criminal sexual behavior."

He/she insisted that I confess and that if it was not too serious he/she could advocate for me. I refused to make any admissions because I have never engaged in any illegal sexual act.

I  informed the examiner that I have severe hypertension, and suggested that this condition might have caused a false positive reading.  In addition, I told the examiner that a close relative of mine was molested as a child and that perhaps this was the result of my reaction.

The examiner abruptly cut me off and indicated that he/she was 100 percent certain that I was being deceptive. After several minutes of badgering by the examiner, I ended the post test interrogation and went home. 

About two weeks after the exam, I got a call from my employer notifying me that I was being placed on paid administrative leave. I work with abused children and the polygraph examiner filed a report with local law enforcement and county and state licensing agencies.

In the report, the examiner claimed that I had made an admission about: "being sexually stimulated when a child gives me a hug" and the examiner wrote that I verbalized being "fearful that a local licensing agency would be notified." 
I did not make these statements.

As a result of the examiner's lies, I have now been on paid administrative leave for a month (losing hundred in overtime pay). In addition, the local police sent two detectives to my home to question me. Also, state and local social service agencies are conducting investigations which include interviewing current and former clients and coworkers.

These investigations are being conducted solely based on the examiner's report. There are no clients making any allegations and in over 12 years on the job, I have never been investigated for sexual misconduct. 

 I strongly want this examiner to be held accountable for filing a false report. What are my options?

P.S..... the examiner accused me of using countermeasures during the exam and screamed at me twice while I was connected to the device. Both times the examier shouted, "Watch you breathing, or I'll stop the test!" Could this have been an attempt by the examiner to manipulate the results?

Thanks for your response! I am currently looking into my legal options and will take all appropriate steps to hold those responsible accountable! This includes, but is not limited to filing civil lawsuits against the examiner and the county that employed such an uneducated, dogmatic, individual!  

A True Libertarian,

I completely agree with Mark Mallah's assessment.  Your experience, as you have described it (I take it at face value unless given reason to do otherwise), can be categorized as nothing less than egregious and outrageous. An outline of the contained absurdities would include the following:

1.  There is no reason to expect any validity whatsoever in a screening exam focusing on issues dealing with criminal sexual behavior.  Because your hypertension and relative's experience are completely irrelevant to the  lack of general validity with this sort of testing there should be absolutely no burden of responsibility placed on you to explain why an invalid test produces inaccurate results.

2.  No polygraph examiner in the absence of a corroborated confession or other irrefutable evidence is 100 per cent sure of anything.  One who simply has the results of a polygraph-screening exam is most assuredly not sure of anything.

3.  Anyone who believes a polygraph examiner will likely be an advocate for an examinee that makes admissions (whether true or false) needs to have his head examined.  Although I am sorry to hear that you had to endure such nonsense, I am equally glad to hear that you ended the charade soon after becoming convinced of the folly foisted upon you.

4.  I am (and so should every American be) highly incensed by the continuing litany of claimed false admissions/confessions alleged to have been attributed to examinees by polygraph examiners.  This is a claim that has come to my attention several times through this site and elsewhere.  PDD-Fed, Polycop, Public Servant, et al, is there any doubt with this sort of recurring examinee testimony that EVERY single polygraph examination conducted in this country should be audio and videotaped?

5.  No examiner has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect countermeasures.  Beyond that, and of a more fundamental concern, is that few, if any, practicing polygraphers have any real knowledge of respiratory physiology.  Without an understanding of the many and complex factors affecting respiration rate and volume (central, peripheral, and chemical factors, et al), various physiological and pathological conditions leading to apneustic breathing, etc, and how all these various factors may play out during a polygraph exam, no polygraph examiner has any business commenting to an examinee about respiration.  The notion of being told to "watch your breathing" is particularly absurd.  Essentially you are being told to control your breathing (presumably the last thing a countermeasure-frightened polygraph community would want) only in a manner pleasing to the polygraph examiner and producing tracings that he is comfortable with.


I hope that you will keep us informed as you seek to fight the travesty that you’ve described.  Best Wishes,

Drew Richardson

Quote:


Sir,

I hope you will ask your employer what sanctions they will bring against your accuser for lying to them about you. Barring that, I hope you will explore civil litigation against your polygraph interrogator and his employer.

Civil litigation looking good!

I hope that my case sends a message to the pro-polygraph community!

Mark my words... any polygraph examiner who thinks that they can lie, or file false reports that indicate that admissions were made will be held accountable; lol!

I am tempted to to name the county involved, but I have been advised not to by my attorney. 

Correct me if I am wrong, to the best of my knowledge, any peace officer who files a false report may be charge with a felony! 

George,

Thanks for your reply. I hope that my case has an impact on the community at large as well.

I, have contacted several agencies regarding my experience, in an attempt to seek accountability, against my polygraph examiner and his/her employer.

I have even sent an email to Skip Webb of the "American Polygraph Association." Mr. Webb responded to my complaint as follows:

"First you should determine if the interview was recorded. If so request the agency review the taped interview for the reported admissions. Second, I would need to know if the examiner is a member of the APA. If so you could file a grievance, but you would need evidence that the reported admissions made by you did not occur as alleged in the polygraph report."

I, appreciate Mr. Webb for taking the time to respond to my email; however, doesn't his response clearly express that the APA places the burden of proof on the examinee. Basically, Mr Webb is informing me that if my polygraph experience was not video taped that I cannot file a valid grievance.

This is an outrage and basically sends the message that a polygraph examiner has broad authority to: distort, manipulate, and even lie about the polygraph results in his/her written report. 

True Libertarian,

Your last post included the following:

Quote:


With regard to the (at this point) hypothetical scenario you raise involving your polygraph examination and interrogation NOT having been recorded, Mr. Webb will have to answer for himself as to how he would  view your then uncorroborated testimony and whether he believes this to be sufficient and compelling  reason for requiring all such future encounters to be recorded.  I personally and very strongly  believe that EVERY examination should be recorded and that this should be taken as seriously and viewed as much a protected right as the administration and recording of an advice of rights and accompanying form(s) in a criminal matter.   

I further believe, that if support for this position is not quickly forthcoming from general law enforcement, polygraph organizations such as the APA and teaching institutions such as DoDPI (which as far as I am aware and to their credit record all in-house examinations), the public should demand such through the following actions: (1) Consideration should be given in contemplated civil suits (such as the one you have alluded to in your case) to suing not only for wrongful determinations and actions stemming from inaccurate polygraph results and “made-up” confessions/admissions but for not providing the basic protection (from such abuse) afforded through routine audio/video recordings, and (2) grass-root signature petitions should be started all over the country getting referendums on the ballot mandating the use of, protection of, and reasonable availability (for protected parties) of such recordings.

I also believe that considerably more time, effort, and personnel resources should be expended by the polygraph community towards utilizing concealed information testing.  This effort will yield at least two major benefits over presently and widely used lie detection formats:  (1)  This type of examination has a scientific basis for practice, has components of meaningful scientific control, and potentially offers a valid procedure/results suitable for introduction in trial matters through expert testimony in Daubert or Frye hearings, and equally importantly, and in the context of this thread, (2) will provide for testing whose public dissemination  polygraph examiners would not need dread or fear as personally embarrassing should said dissemination become the norm through courtroom replay and any accompanying media coverage.  This latter relative benefit is made possible because concealed information testing does not require or involve any of the deceit and misrepresentation inherent (even in the absence of  contrived confessions/admissions) in many commonly utilized lie detection formats.

Regards,

Drew Richardson

Marty,

Although my mention of CIT exams was not the focus (the absolute necessity for audio/video recording of polygraph examinations was) of my last post or this thread, I believe you may have missed my point there.  I would never suggest CIT exams (or any other) be done for employee, applicant, or other screening.  This latter group of applications is nothing but a fishing expedition with no, and I repeat absolutely no, basis for practice.  These types of exams should be altogether discontinued, and, as has been made the central focus of this site since its inception, should be banned by law through a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act, completing that which was begun in earnest (but not yet finished) with the EPPA.  Relative to this thread and aside from potentially providing a valid diagnostic instrument to be used with specific issue testing, CIT exams would allow polygraphers to readily display to the world (through the aforementioned recordings)  universally-acknowledged professional behavior leading to a valuable product .  Quite apart from the issue of contrived admissions/confessions (which launched this thread), the conduct of commonly administered lie-detection exams, when publicly revealed, would likely always serve as a source of embarrassment for the polygraph community.