posted 10-29-2006 05:04 PM         

A guy comes into your office with his wife and requests an infidelity test for himself. He completes the exam and is NDI.

Another guy comes into your office and says he is thinking about getting into law enforcement. He wants you to administer a pre-employment polygraph just to see how he does. He comes back DI on drugs.

In both cases, the "client" tells you this is a very personal matter and they want no report or any record that they ever took the test. In fact, they ask you to destroy the charts and not document the fact that they were even in your office.

Do you do it? If so, what about the usual standards for maintaining business records?

Ted

posted 10-29-2006 06:33 PM            

There is an inarticule question underlying this...

for whom do we work?

This is exactly what I don't like about fidelity type tests.

I have steadfastly refused to do self-referrals, including fidelity tests, and walk-ins - unless the client is willing to get another professional involved.

Last week I worked on a school expulsion following a menacing incident after which a knife was recovered. The father agreed to get an attorney involved, the son failed and admitted, and the attorney can help the father and son what to do next.

I have done some fidelity type tests, but only when the couple is referred by one of a few very competent therapists, and I give the report only to the professional.

Other cases I encourage people to get an attorney involved, and I advise people that it would be unimpressive to a law enforcement agency for someone to say "I've already had my own investigator do my background and polygraph."

On the other hand, I have done a couple of tests for attorneys who observe the proceedings and have stopped the test before completion. Some attorneys don't do that and some want my report, for a come-to-jesus conversation with a client who's thinking about going to trial. Others don't want any report because they seem to feel that just having it slows the momentum of their defense.

Say what we like about attorneys, but I'm not yet ready to give up completely on our legal system and the rights of accussed to attorney -client priviledge. Its a pain, but I think we have to honor the fact that a lot of wisdom tells us that the right to a defense is not something to mess with.

In all cases I prepare a "draft report" for my own files - its clearly marked "draft," and only once has that been released via subpoena tecus decum (or something like that). In that case the test results were inconclusive, and the subject had been diagnosed with very serious neurologically based learning disorder.

For me, working for a referring professional is quite different than working for the schmo whom I'm testing.

In PCSOT testing, we understand that therapists and POs are subject to mandatory child-abuse reporting. When working for defense attorney, the test is subjec to attorney client priviledge. Both principles are important. I would'nt change either.

But I think that's very different than working for some guy who wants to call all the shots himself, and play every card close to his chest (sorry for mixing metaphors here.)

I keep the charts and the documentation.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(from Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-29-2007 09:38 AM            

I have been faced with that situation. Here's what I do:

1) I don't write a report if the client doesn't want one;

2) I keep all polygraph sessions and the video of the appointment, in case something happens (like the idiot later sues me), I can re-create (for the court) the situation using the video and polygrams.

Chip

posted 05-31-2007 10:47 AM         

We don't have this dilemma in Utah. The law requires examiners to maintain all records for a minimum of three years. The law also requires that if no written report is issued, the examiner must put the outcome of the test into a memorandum for the record.

posted 05-31-2007 11:07 AM         

I wish California had the same legal requirements as Utah. We have pushed for licensing but every time we do, the state keeps putting the cost back on the examiners and it never gets through. It would be a whole lot easier to police our own and get rid of the "hacks" if we had the support of the law.

Even if my report is never sent to anyone, I do write one. I digitally retain the reports and the charts (as well as any audio) for a period of three years.