The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


  Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
  Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
  Man wins $600k in lie-detector suit

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Man wins $600k in lie-detector suit
Barry C
Member
posted 10-20-2006 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/LOCAL/61019032

Man wins $600k in lie-detector suit

A jury has awarded $600,000 to a former Shelby County probation officer who was fired based on what his attorneys argued was a negligently administered polygraph test.


The six-member Shelby Superior Court jury in Shelbyville late Wednesday awarded Daniel P. Morgan, 38, $400,000 on his claim of negligent administration of a polygraph examination and $200,0000 on his claim of reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A panel of three Shelby County judges overseeing the county probation department fired Morgan on June 13, 1997, after meeting with a State Police senior polygrapher and the intern who administered the exam, said Kevin W. Betz and Sandra L. Blevins, Morgan’s co-counsel.

Morgan filed his lawsuit in 1999, and the case reached various appeals courts before it made it to state court in Shelby County before Special Judge Karen Love of Hendricks County.

Morgan, who was a probation officer in Shelby County for five and a half years and now lives in Franklin, took the polygraph exam after a 16-year-old boy on probation accused him of making sexual advances, his attorneys said.

The attorneys for Morgan, who now works for the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation, argued during the trial that the more experienced, senior State Police polygrapher failed to tell the judges overseeing the probation department that the polygraph results were “inconclusive,” while the intern who administered the test told the judges the results showed Morgan was “slam dunk deceptive.”

Staci Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Attorney General’s office, said it would be several days before a decision is made in consultation with the State Police on whether to appeal.

The monetary judgments were handed down against the State Police. The jury also found the intern polygraph examiner at the time, Timothy Kaiser, now a State Police first sergeant, liable for punitive damages, but assessed no monetary payment against him.


Call Star reporter William Booher at (317) 444-2706.


Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 10-20-2006 09:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
Ah Indiana. Thanks Barry for the thread. I would love to see those charts. My gut tells me that the pneumos are behind the split call. I know there has been much debate over pneumo scoring----especially Don K's "defensable dozen" scoring criteria and that pneumo amplitude is missing from the criteria. Since pneu amp has been removed from the criteria I went back to my archived tests and rescored them using (removing) the amp call and found many tests to result in differing calls---usually being that the calls would slide to IN/NO from the 2 outer calls or visa versa. Of course in addition to the latest scoring research I no longer have the relative confidence when running the AFMGQT that I once had (also new research)----all of which is a point of agitation and insecurity (thanks Don). Wise examiners have always reminded us that they have never ran a perfect test. I believe that a CT scan technician, sleep study tech, oncologist, would find this premise rediculous---being that any tester strives and should succeed in a perfect test----medium of test aside (premise.)Sorry for the rant BC. I am feeling a little ashamed of the profession due to some "training" over the last couple of months which merited a level of scepticism that any rational scientific person would find shameful.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 10-20-2006).]

IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 10-20-2006 03:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd     Edit/Delete Message
Barry,

Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time taking anything printed by the local media at face value. There has to be more to this story. Do we have any members in Indiana that could give us the complete picture?

Ted

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 10-20-2006 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
I'm sure there's more. That's why I posted it.

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.