I was a victim of stolen medication. In order to have new script issued, I was required to produce a police report. The officer only agreed to issue my report if I agreed to a polygraph; since I was telling the truth, I agreed to the "test". Of course the polygraph was followed up with a degrading and upsetting interrogation. It was intense, I was crying hysterically and the examiner continued to accuse and badger me until I told him maybe I gave some away (which I did not). Now I have a charge against me for filing a false police report. While I can see the police's need to combat drug seeking behavior, why attack an innocent person? Since the police used the "test" as the basis for the post-interrogation, Why can't I use the test (assuming I actually passed when the officer said I failed) to negate his "probable cause" to continue interrogating me? Why tie up an overloaded judicial system with a false confession? Does this "confession" benefit the examiner and/or police, showing a higher resolve rate? If I manage to have the case dismissed or through a trial am found innocent, will it affect the examiner/police adversely? My public defender warned me to take the plea so they, essentially, don't retaliate. Is that possible (probable)? I'm not asking for legal advice, I am already screwed, I just want to understand how this is considered justice.

Ex Member wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 11:13pm:



Until you take one, you have no idea how traumatic and grueling a polygraph "examination" can be - it is that way for a reason.  The polygraphers want you to be so frightened that you "spill your guts".  Some federal agencies give bonuses to polygraph operators that get the most damaging admissions! In fact, many people are so intimidated that they make statements that the polygrapher will use to disqualify or incriminate them - some people are so frightened that they confess to things they haven't even done! Just yesterday I visited with an attorney who was applying for a job with one of the USG agencies.  This man was an Army veteran and was not easily frightened.  But, he said he was so intimidated by literally hours of badgering by the polygrapher that he actually signed a false statement about drug use in hopes that by doing so he could satisfy the polygrapher.  The polygrapher dictated the statement, he wrote it out as instructed and signed it - and it was all a false confession!

"The officer only agreed to issue my report if I agreed to a polygraph"

This is where your troubles began.  A "police report" is not a report issued by the police, it is a report that you make to the police.  When you do, your report becomes a public document.  You may give a copy of this public document to the script-issuing agency.  It does not testify that the medicine was stolen; it only testifies that you publicly reported to the police that the medicine was stolen.

So why did the officer not simply write down your report of the theft, give you a copy, and add it to his files?  Because evidently his experience and intuition convinced him that you're trying to get extra medication.  Perhaps he suspects everyone of this kind of behavior -- cops are like that -- or perhaps you are rare in your innocence.  In any case, the only check on a police officer's runaway suspicion is further investigation.

Officially, once the police's suspicions are aroused, they poke around and ask questions and search here and there, and eventually those suspicions are either allayed, abandoned, or proven justified.

The great evil of the lie detector and the polygraph examination is that it short-circuits any ongoing investigation.

In spite of the well-known and documented shamefully high incidence of false-positive results, once a polygraph examiner elicits any admission from his subject, the police lose all further interest in what really happened.  In police parlance, the polygraph is not a tool for solving cases, it is a tool for closing cases.

In your case, the investigating officer took advantage of the fact that you think a police report is a testament issued by the police, and the polygraph examiner took advantage of the fact that you expect trusted public servants to be honest.  It isn't, and they're not.