Failing an FBI polygraph won't necessarily preclude you from a career in law enforcement, but it can make things much more difficult. The FBI routinely shares information about applicants with other federal agencies. Let's suppose, for example, that you fail an FBI pre-employment polygraph and are disqualified for life from FBI employment. (This happens to about half the people who make it as far along in the FBI hiring process as the polygraph.)

Now, when you apply for a job with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a National Agency Check will reveal that you have an FBI file (it's a permanent record), and that file will be requested and reviewed. It will come to light that you've failed the polygraph. And at that point, it may make getting the job harder. If you're required to take a polygraph for CBP, the fact that you've previously failed a polygraph will also tend to bias the polygraph operator against you.

To the best of my knowledge, the FBI does not generally share information about applicants with non-federal agencies. NYPD, to its credit, does not require applicants to submit to lie detector "testing." You might, however, be asked about any other law enforcement agencies with which you have applied for employment in the past, and if you disclose that you applied for the FBI but were rejected because of the polygraph, that could hurt your chances of being hired.

Because of the particularly severe consequences of failing an FBI polygraph, and the very high failure rate at this agency, my recommendation to all who seek a career in law enforcement is to steer clear of the FBI until such time as it ends its misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

Quote:


The later.  They expect you to answer "no".  If you answer "yes" they will ask you to explain, the rephrase the question "other than what you told me, have you ever....."

Some polygraph operators will get irate if you keep answering "yes" to a control question.  Poor dears.

TC

Quote:


Correct, but you have to be prepared to explain your reaction on the "control".  Just make sure it is not anything they could use to disqualify you.  For example, admitting you stole a pen from work, not something major.  The more they concentrate on you answers to a control questions, versus a relevant, the better.

Read the "lie behind the lie detector" it covers the use of CMs better than I could explain to you on this forum.  Basically, the more you are disturbed and reactive on the control, versus the relevants, the greater you chances of passing.  That and NOT letting them con you into admitting to anything they can distort and twist like their arrogant little minds!

And, as always, realize that a reaction on the machine does NOT mean deception no matter how much the examiner claims it does, but don't let on that you know that.

TC

Send a PM to George as he is the expert on cm usage.  He wrote the TLBTLD.

The whole idea is to show a higher "reaction" to the control questions (if any), than to relevant questions.  Relevant questions are pretty easy to ident.  With the FBI, questions might be something like "Have you ever stolen anything with a value over $100?", or "have you ever intentionally divulged classified information to any unauthorized person"...etc.

But you should be prepared to explain reactions to controls.  So, if you answered, "No", you haven't "stolen anything", they may say "well, I may have stolen a pen at school", or some other minor thing.

The most important thing to remember is you are WALKING INTO AN INTERROGATION!  They are NOT your friend, they are NOT there to help you, though they will tell you they are.  They will lie to you and claim the machine can actually detect "deception".  It can't!  They're whole goal is to see what dumb things they can get you to say or admit to.  If you show persistent reaction on a given relevant question, they will ASSume you are lying.  Their goal THEN, will be to get you to say anything at all with which they can distort and turn into a "disqualifying" admission.  Read some of the "personal statements" linked on the home page of this website to see how they can twist, distort, and blow out of proportion insignificant info divulged by an innocent, but naive applicant.

It's easier for them to do this than you think.  The will attempt to wear you out, trick you, try to be your buddy...etc.  They are TRAINED INTERROGATORS!   They will try to frustrate you, and get you to the point where you will say things you otherwise wouldn't just so you can "end this bullshit and get out of here".  

Do a google search on "false confessions"., and "interrogation techniques".  You might start out with this:

http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1104868281.86/Conti%20article%...

Then again, you might show little if any reaction to the relevant questions, and get out through it without too much difficulty (i dunno maybe not with the FBI), and pass.  Don't be belligerent, angry or smart alecky with them though.  

Again, talk to GM.  Using CMs at the wrong time and in the wrong manner can indeed backfire on you.

TC

Quote:


Which is why it is important to learn WHEN and HOW to PROPERLY use them.  As well as becoming familiar with some of the interrogation techniques which might be used against you during the polygraph, should the examiner become "aggressive" or "accusatory".  Should this occur during a police polygraphi, the test should be immediately terminated as Ed Van Arsdale (Sancho Panza) suggests.

TC

hey cm cullen.. what do you mean by "maybe not the Fbi"..? why is the lie detector diferent with the fbi?

Also, for anyone who wants to answer, including (i forgot ur screename but the person responsing to cm cullen)..... what if you have something minor to hide in the relevant questions that will cause someone not to get a job.... what do you suggest? or some sugesstions on what to do?

Also I understand the guy who wrote the book knows alot and I like what he is doing here to help people, but does he have experience with actually beating a polygraph or is he just mad that he failed one and did research without actually passing one having lied on one??

I would also like to talk to someone who actually beat a polygraph having lied on one..... those people are probably not on this site anymore because they have no need to take a look on here.

Again I dont want to take a polygraph, fail it and then ruin my career in law enforcement..

The FBI will send about 3,000 letters of conditional employment with the expectation that two out of three will not successfully pass the background screening process that starts with the polygraph.  I think that 50% is a conservative number of conditional employees removed from the application process by the polygraph.  For every three that go in, one goes on to the background investigative process.  This in itself does not bother me as much as the the two that do not come out are blacklisted for any other federal career that will involve a polygraph as part of their screening process.  They will never have a chance to challenge their accuser, a man hidden behind a machine.  Pontious Pilate, the examiner, washes his hands clean of the crime saying that the "machine" is responsible, not him.  The rejected applicants will have to state that they took a polygraph for another agency.  The examiner will ask what the outcome was.  This question is moot because if the polygraph examination was successful, the applicant would not be applying for another position.  The examiner will not want to make another examiner look bad for not passing the applicant so they will do a perfunctory examination and find the applicant not acceptable as to keep the charade going.  Such a tangles web we weave.