George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:03am:


The police do not have anything to do with this request.  This request came from the employer, who has every right, even a responsibility, to investigate the theft of a customer's property from a vehicle on his premisis.  

My point is take or refuse, pass or fail, the employee still has all EPPA protections!

The employer appears to have complied with the federal law.  The employer did not discharge, displicine or discriminate.  The employee still has the same job at the same pay, he is simply assigned to a different location.  The employer will show that all employees are subject to reassignment and other employees have been reassigned before.  Thus, no discrimination.

And by the way, graw, you have a weak case, but an attorney is not required.  If you feel you were wronged, you can file a compliant by simply contacting DOL Wage and Hour Division yourself. 

Pailryder,

Actually, Graw indicated in his first post that the police had asked if he would take a polygraph. The employer also asked him to take a polygraph (and that demand may have itself been a violation of EPPA). I disagree with you on the question of whether the employer's action in assigning Graw to a more-difficult-to-reach site was discriminatory. It seems to me that it pretty clearly is.

Seriously,

You should cancel any appointment for a polygraph "test." Polygraphy has no scientific basis, and as used by police, it is often little more than a pretext for interrogating a suspect without a lawyer. Interrogation tactics can be coercive and manipulative, sometimes leading to false confessions. Even innocuous statements have the potential to be harmful to you, even though you're innocent. You have nothing to gain and potentially much to lose by submitting to a polygraph interrogation.

You would be wise to get a lawyer and not talk to police again without your lawyer present. Any competent lawyer will tell you not to submit to a polygraph "test," and you can tell the police that you're declining the polygraph based on your lawyer's advice.

George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 7:48am:


This is why the myth that the polygraph is a "lie detector" is so dangerous! It is nothing but a psychological billy club used to coerce a person into confessing!  And it is FOOLISH & DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as a "lie detector, or even as a prop for an interrogation because, as this article demonstrates, many of the confessions obtained by polygraph interrogations are false confessions!  One can only hope that the truth about how corrupt and abusive these polygraph operators, (interrogators), are will be exposed and that the use of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture will finally be stopped entirely!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-chicago-police-polygraph-unit-met-20...
 
Chicago mother Nicole Harris was convicted in 2005 of murdering her 4-year-old son. A federal appeals court overturned her conviction, and her case was dismissed in June after the Cook County state's attorney's office completed a comprehensive reinvestigation. (Nancy Stone, Chicago Tribune / February 25, 2013) 
By Duaa Eldeib, Chicago Tribune reporter
November 29, 2013
After decades of relying on controversial polygraph examinations to help solve crimes, the Chicago Police Department has drastically scaled back on giving so-called lie-detector tests in the course of criminal investigations.
In what appears to be a shift in focus, the department's polygraph unit examiners, who previously worked under the forensic services division, have been relocated to human resources, where their primary responsibility is administering the tests to police officer candidates. The examiners' new unit follows industry standards for conducting polygraphs.
The move was said to be temporary, but one year later, the examiners are still with the personnel unit.
"The temporary detail was made to address the backlog in pre-employment screenings needs," police spokesman Adam Collins said. "There hasn't been a move away from polygraphs as a part of criminal investigations."
Collins did not say how long the three examiners would remain with human resources, which has seen a significant increase in the number of pre-employment polygraphs. He said only that it would be "until the need has been met." The examiners continue to conduct criminal polygraphs as the need arises, Collins said.
Yet the number of criminal polygraphs has dropped considerably, from about 400 in 2011 to 50 in the first eight months of 2013.
The timing of the examiners' move to the personnel unit corresponded with a Tribune investigation into the polygraph unit's role in obtaining false confessions. Critics decried the department's use of polygraphs, claiming the examiners employed it as an interrogation prop to extract confessions. Some detractors also questioned the validity of the polygraph itself, calling it junk science. Polygraphs have played a role in several Chicago murder prosecutions that unraveled.
At the time of the Tribune's investigation, published in March, police extolled the polygraph as a valuable investigative tool in criminal cases.
But the Tribune found that Chicago police did not adhere to voluntary published standards for how polygraphs are administered or scored. For example, major industry groups strongly encourage numerical scoring of polygraph exams, but it wasn't until 2012 that Chicago police said their examiners had recently begun employing the practice. Before that, one examiner agreed in a sworn deposition that he scored a test simply by "eyeballing it."
The Tribune also found that the city has paid out millions of dollars in damages in polygraph-related cases. The Tribune examined the role of the polygraph unit in the cases of six defendants who went on to be cleared — five of whom were charged with murder.
One of them was Chicago mother Nicole Harris, who had been convicted in 2005 of murdering her 4-year-old son. A federal appeals court overturned her conviction, and her case was dismissed in June after the Cook County state's attorney's office completed a comprehensive reinvestigation.
"We do not believe that it would be in the interest of justice to proceed on this matter," State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said in a statement at the time.
Harris claimed she falsely confessed to Chicago police examiner Robert Bartik only after he berated her and told her she had failed the polygraph exam, though police records show the test was inconclusive.
Bartik, who in court records denied those claims, declined to comment.
In their role handling pre-employment polygraphs, the examiners now report to a supervisor who is a licensed polygraph examiner, and written procedures dictate that the examiners comply with professional standards, according to police records and officials.
Steven Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern University and expert in false confessions, was part of the team from the university's Center on Wrongful Convictions that represented Harris in her appeal.
Drizin said he believes the department's decision to shift the focus of the examiners "is an admission that their presence in criminal cases, especially homicide cases, is a liability to the prosecution."
"There are legions of false confessions that came about as a result of the introduction of false polygraph results during the course of an interrogation," he added.
The defendants who were later cleared said they had believed the polygraph was a scientific test that would confirm their innocence. They said police told them a polygraph could prove if they were telling the truth. Instead, they alleged that the polygraph examiners manipulated them into falsely confessing and in one case made up a confession.
Collins said the department has not changed its philosophy regarding criminal polygraphs. The decision to move the examiners to the personnel unit was made in October 2012, and the examiners began in the personnel unit the following month, he said. At the time the Tribune's investigation was published months later, department officials denied the unit's focus or responsibilities had shifted.
Now, when a request for a criminal polygraph comes through, arrangements are made to allow the examiners to assist the detectives, department officials said.
In 2011, Chicago police conducted 402 criminal polygraphs. In 2012, that number dropped to 169, according to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Examiners from the Cook County sheriff's office, who have been called in on occasion to assist with criminal polygraphs, have conducted seven exams for Chicago police since 2012, a spokeswoman for the sheriff's office said.
"An increase or decrease is merely a reflection of the number of requests that came in" and not a change in strategy, Collins said.
The commander who oversees forensics has called Bartik, who was involved in five of the six cases, an "excellent examiner." Bartik previously testified that 111 people confessed to him in a five-year period, prompting a defense expert to call his record "unprecedented." In court records, Bartik has denied any wrongdoing.
deldeib@tribune.com
Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

pailryder wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:


But not at a "three-letter" agency!  lol

James, I am not sure about NY State, but I know of other State Dept. of Corrections which employ the polygraph to monitor parolees/probationers' keeping to the terms of their release. It's a dog's life, so you may want to keep your hands in your pockets to be safe.

Marlene,

Your friend would be wise to refuse the polygraph. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis, and a suspect's "failing" the "test" can be part of an investigator's interrogation plan.

Moreover, your friend would be well advised not to speak with anyone from law enforcement at all, for reasons explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc