posted 09-16-2011 06:10 PM         

I just saw this on the net and it is quite disturbing to me. At a time when we should all be on the same page, 3-4 agencies get together and write a new set of guidelines??

Anyone ever heard of AAPP, APA or NPA? Not to even mention ASTM! And by the way folks, your new stuff is all over the anti site which is exactly where I got it! What has happened here can only further divide us and open us up for more legal and "scientific" challenges.

The agencies involved are DCIS, CBP, LAPD and HPD (Houston). What the HAAALE even brought that group together? What gives these guys the right to go off on a tangent when the rest of the polygraph world is trying to get on the same page? Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?

John? Len? Please feel free to ring in here but I feel as though the rest of us in the LE Polygraph field have been left in the dark??

Ted

posted 09-17-2011 08:09 AM            

I also obtained this document from the George's site, printed it and reviewed the contents. (Actually, I get alot of my documents from George's site)

I support a standardized process, but I am not at all convinced that this "accreditation manual" will be successful. I think there will be too many bureaucratic standards that are routine and familiar for some agencies, but considered too burdensome for smaller agencies. It sounds like it was written with federal polygraph programs, who have the manpower and resources, in mind. I can just imagine how my agency chief would react to another agency telling him they don't agree with his test results and do it again.

[This message has been edited by rcgilford (edited 09-17-2011).]

posted 09-20-2011 06:05 PM            

You're missing something. This is a voluntary standards program for law enforcement only. Nobody has to belong (same as CALEA). Right now, it's getting set up in the feds hands. One goal is to create a law enforcement database of pre-employment tests (that is, who's been tested) to make sure people aren't polygraph shopping and trying to get into law enforcement who don't belong there. (Some have already been caught trying to infiltrate.)

To make it all happen, they needed to start with some standards, and the techniques they use are those in use by many federal agencies. (I think CBP has one of the best LE screening programs going, and this is Bill Gary's project - of CBP - so it looks much like what they do.)

The plan is to get it running with federal money and then turn it all over to LE. It may be one of the best solutions to the NAS (2009) report. The APA and AAPP simply can't afford to do what the feds are doing for us. The legal work alone has to be a huge manpower and money issue. After all, making this work to increase homeland security is a major task, especially in regard to confidentiality issues.

I've seen Bill present on it at AAPP, and it was well received, but whether it will really take off or not, I don't know. I think Gordon Moore's program in Vegas was the first to make it through the process, so the LV guys could probably tell you just what they like and why they joined.

It's my understanding they don't tell you how to do things so much as they come in and attest that you do what you say you do. Right now, to keep things easy, they limited techniques to those they could easily assess, but all that should grow if enough LE gets involved and takes the program and runs with it.

posted 09-21-2011 10:25 AM            

If the goal is to respond to the 2009 NRC report, then why are the PLEA standard written in ways that are at time arbitrary and inconsistent with the scientific studies?

Four charts not five.

Symptomatics test for the presence of outside issues.

Did you have sexual intercourse with that woman without her consent?

Did Terri cry in front of you that night?

Not a single mention of Directed Lie Comparison Questions or DLCs.

Not a single mention of the Utah techniques.

It would seem that it is a violation of the PLEA standards (and therefore unethical?) to use some well-established scientific ideas when conducting law enforcement polygraphs.

Any idea how did this happened?

Is committee consensus really more valuable than scientific evidence when we prepare to respond to the concerns expressed in the 2009 NRC report?

Do we think we will win the hearts and minds of the forensic science community like this?

Sure standards will help. And sure, most of these standards are not incorrect. But what is the point of restricting examiners from doing what the scientific studies tell us is valid? What is gained from that?

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-21-2011 01:03 PM            

Perhaps in light of the recent APA meta-analysis that handbook should be rewritten to include scientifically supported recommendations.

I am not sure Las Vegas participated in this program. Perhaps someone can contact Gordon to ask.

posted 09-21-2011 09:02 PM            

------------------
Ben

ben@PolygraphToday.com

posted 09-21-2011 09:50 PM         

A data base? Really? Is this similar to the Illegal Immigrant Data Base, The No Fly List Data Base and the Fraudulent Medicare Provider Data Base? (and thousands of other federally funded data bases?)

If you want to keep bad guys from becoming Cops, you need to do a thorough background investigation which includes a thorough polygraph. Many federal law enforcement agencies do not do a polygraph (ICE, U.S.Marshal) Many federal law enforcement agencies sub out the BG investigations to sub-contractors who have little or no law enforcement experience. See any holes in security here??

Since federal law enforcement can not even get on the same page as other federal law enforcement agencies, do you think a federal law enforcement agency should be dictating polygraph policy to the rest of the law enforcement community while ignoring the scientific community?

Yes Barry, I think I am missing something!

And no, I am not bashing any of the terrific federal agents we have today. I am bashing a system that is so caught up in it's own red tape that it can no longer function with any real efficency. If I want to listen to any more federal garbage I'll simply tune in to Obama's next speech!

Ted

posted 09-22-2011 06:20 AM            

Along the lines Ted brings up about a data base I have concerns. This seems like it has potential to permanently "black list" an applicant. The polygraph is not perfect, and that includes the people who give the test, who take the test and who review the test from a QC standpoint. If agency A in California puts applicant X's results in a data-base and that applicant gets denied a job in New York, it could be argued that the California agency erred and that California agency could find themselves in New York defending a lawsuit because the applicant's due process was violated or circumvented. Governmental issues should be handled at their lowest level possible, in most cases. I just don't think a federally-backed database is a great idea. Who from the government is going to come to testify on the local agency's behalf?

Polygraph is just a small piece of the hiring puzzle and should never become the tail wagging the dog. To be admitted into a club that precludes you from applying science to a scientific process seems quite worrisome.

posted 09-22-2011 09:20 AM            

First, it wasn't a response to the NAS 2009 report. It started before that came out. I think the concept of accreditation for LE polygraph programs could be what is needed in the wake of the report. ASCLD would be nice, but they don't seem all that interested in accrediting polygraph programs because, I've heard, it's not science.

Second, the database, as I understand it, lets people know who has tested and where. I don't think you get results. I don't even know if you get DQ admissions since they vary. What you get is a person to call and ask, "What did he tell you?" We already do that, but the infrastructure for a much larger and more comprehensive database now exists, and the feds want to make it available to all LE.

Third, some of your issues have come up in Bill's presentations. He said they had to make some decisions to get this up and running. He's made it plain it's not perfect, but that wasn't his goal. As I understand it, it was to create the program (which has cost $$$ and lot's of legal considerations, i.e., more $$$) that would one day (within 3 years?) be taken over by LE where they would be free to make the fixes needed.

You can pick on the manual (which I haven't read, but already know needs work), but that's already a known issue - just attend the briefing on the program. It (manual / standards) was an issue out of the gate, but I don't think it (the program) was going to get out of the gate any other way. The feds made this possible, and they still have their own issues. It's a big ship to turn around. Bill could have waited on that, but then this may never have come to pass. It may die a slow death, or some scientifically-minded LE members may run with it and make it the polygraph equal to ASCLD. We'll have to see.

posted 09-22-2011 11:22 AM         

This is EXACTLY what is wrong here. Let's take a ton of money and throw it at a problem KNOWING in advance that at best, you hoped to achieve a half-assed result. This has been the standing operating proceedure of the federal gov for far too long.

.......and now, a breath of fresh air:

"Perhaps the APA or AAPP could facilitate the meetings at which PLEA members could discuss how to update their standards to be more consistent with the science?"

Barry, I couldn't have said it better myself!

And in the words of my good friend Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along?"

Peace

Ted

(Ya OK- I stole the peace thing from Dr. Barland)

posted 09-23-2011 09:07 AM            

Wait a minute, I'm thinking of the Sex Offender Register..... Never Mind.

Really, do we need another federal database and another set of "official standards"? We have the APA "validated techniques", the APA PCSOT standards, the ASTM standards, the APA School Accreditation Manual and we still have people doing 15 minute test on muscle builders and bass fishermen!

How about this standard? If the test is comprised of an irrelevant question to start, multiple comparison questions, PLC or DLC followed by simple and specific relevant questions and you compare one to the other to see which is displays more reaction, it's a valid technique.

posted 09-23-2011 09:39 AM            

quote:

---

How about this standard? If the test is comprised of an irrelevant question to start, multiple comparison questions, PLC or DLC followed by simple and specific relevant questions and you compare one to the other to see which is displays more reaction, it's a valid technique.

---

posted 09-23-2011 10:40 AM         

This would only give you another investigative lead to follow on police applicants. The Federal Government would only facilitate the site and assist smaller agencies in having QC on examinations. The government would step away from the program once it was up and running and the agencies of state and local government would have control.

posted 09-24-2011 07:39 PM         

???????????????????????????????????????????

So we need a data base to pick up the phone and call another agency to ask them if the applicant had a SR to the drug history qyestion on his polygraph?

DUPLICATION DUPLICATION DUPLICATION!!!!!

If you do a PROPER and THOROUGH BG investigation, you don't need another data base to follow where an applicant has applied too!

I know, let's set up data bases for these:

Where the applicant has been arrested
Where the applicant has been employed
Where the applicant went to school
Where the applicant has applied for credit
Where the applicant has applied for a driver's license
Where the applicant has purchased a pizza
Where the applicant has paid a utility bill
Where the applicant has bought property
Where the applicant has registered a vehicle
Where the applicant has been married or divorced
Where the applicant has licensed an airplane or boat
Where the applicant has registered a weapon
Where the applicant filed an insurance claim
Where the applicant has sued or been sued
Where the applicant has purchased a weapon
Where the applicant has paid or not paid taxes
Where the applicant has owned a business
Where the applicant has fathered a child
Where the applicant has applied for a patent
(Somebody stop me!)

These data bases already exist and the last thing we need in another federally funded data base, with numerous paid federal employees to manage it to tell us what we can already find elsewhere!

Come on guys....Wake up and smell the decade!

Ted

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 09-24-2011).]

posted 09-25-2011 06:42 PM            

My big concern is that I do not see how it will help us with the NRC/NAS 2009 report recommendations if we are to ask law enforcement polygraph examiners to adhere to arbitrary standards that do not support the use of scientific polygraph methods.

How does it help us to paint ourselves into a corner of vulnerability with standards that probably make no difference, do not increase the validity or accuracy of the test, and do not support the use of methods that do contribute to increased test accuracy?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-27-2011 11:25 AM            

It seems we are working very hard to prove the reliabilty and validity of the polygraph testing protocol to each other, but what do they require? We keep coming up with new and improved "stuff" to prove what we already know works and call it "scientification" of the profession.

For clarification, I do not mean what "we" think it is to become acceptable, but what will satisfy "those people." It seems we are chasing our tails trying to come up with more and more "evidence" of acceptability. But have we approached the people we are trying to appease, i.e., the "scientific community" and asked them what will satisfy their disbelief and distrust of the process?

Just curious.

posted 09-27-2011 02:53 PM            

Funny you should ask...

First, keep in mind that there is no centralized authority in the scientific world. No defined authority who simply says "this is what is deemed valid."

Second, keep in mind that the scientific world is all about two things:

1) Hypotheses: which are fancy complicated ideas that have no proof, but for which their developers will assert as explains an observed phenomena or solves a problem

and

2) Theories: which are hypotheses for which there is credible and replicated evidence of validity

Non-scientists will often use the word "theory" when they are talking about a "hypothesis."

Third, never forget that all theories are wrong - because they are incomplete. Theories (hypotheses for which there is evidence of validity) seem to work for a while - for as long as we stop learning (which is based on the assumption that we already know everything there is to know, or that we already know everything we will ever need to know). The problem with this (stopping learning) is that the criticisms of our detractors will then become true. It is also grandiose to think we know everything, or everything we need to know. There is always more to learn.

If we continue studying the phenomena of physiological reactions to psychological stimuli regarding past behavioral act, then we will eventually encounter some phenomena that is not explained or accounted for by our theory. This is because all theories are incomplete, and because there is more to learn. When we learn more we are then compelled to up-grade our theories and practices.

Hallmarks of pseudo-science are the failure of independent replication, failure to question one's assumptions, failure to learn more and develop improved knowledge, and failure to upgrade theoretical assumptions and field practices in response to new knowledge.

Hallmarks of real science are that our knowledge is clearly connected with and related to other fields of science. We can learn from them and can incorporate their new ideas into our theories and methods. They will also learn from us, and we will see the incorporation of our knowledge into their evolving theories and practices. Science is auto-catalytic (new advances lead to more new advances).

We either do or do not conduct ourselves like professionals whose work is based in science, or we conduct ourselves like charlatans whose work is based in pseudo-science (do no question our assumptions, do not learn anything new, discourage the use of new knowledge and improved practices, isolate and insulate ourselves from other fields of science with odd jargon and secrecy, and do not interact with the greater scientific world in an auto-catalytic manner, etc.)

The world of science is not a club for which membership is approved by some central committee. There is always someone who would selflessly volunteer to be the king or grand-poo-bah. But without a central authority you may get different answers from different people regarding exactly what needs to be done.

One authoritative source for an answer would be Daubert, which states in essence that scientific knowledge is gained from the scientific method.

• Hypothesis testing (falsifiability):
  Experimental testing to dis-prove or falsify the hypothesis
  
• Subject to peer review and publication
  
• Known potential error rates (norms)‏
  
• Standards and controls for operation
  
• Degree of acceptance by relevant scientific community

The last item (degree of acceptance by the relevant scientific community) will occur naturally if we do the others correctly.

BTW, the "relevant scientific community" should start with our own profession, for which the APA maintains a continuously growing knowledge-base of scientific evidence in the form of studies that have met with satisfactory peer review by subject-matter experts who critique the study design, data analysis, methodology, and conclusions before acceptance for publication.

Of course, critics will always exist, and will always suggest that the APA will act firstly in the self-interest of the profession and secondarily in the interests of others, including the community and good science.

The best response to this is exactly what the APA has done - adopt and publish a good set of reasonable standards to define what constitutes adequate research and use-able scientific evidence. Responsible professions police themselves - researchers as well as practitioners.

The advantage of all this is that we can be prepared to answer questions when the need arises - and it will. Our need for evidence-based methods does not only involve potential use of the polygraph in court. There are legislative issues, rules, regulations and policy decisions to be made everywhere. These decisions often require funding, and the people that make funding decisions like accountability from those to whom they provide funds. That means they will start to ask about the basis of scientific evidence for the polygraph - in terms of both incremental validity (utility) and criterion accuracy. This will happen outside of courtroom case discussions. We will be more likely to prevail and more likely to be useful to our communities if we can show the basis of scientific evidence that supports our hypotheses and assumptions.

If we don't show the evidence, we will be at risk for legislative and policy decisions that do not include funding for polygraph programs.

Regardless of legislative, policy and funding decisions, if we truly believe in the importance and value of our work then there is still great intrinsic satisfaction in volunteer and pro-bono work.

As always,

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-28-2011 08:54 AM            

A master database has serious potential to evolve into a nefarious creature.

Allow me to fall on my own sword. I have worked in LE recruiting and I know we took shortcuts when we could, and I suspect I am not the only recruiter/background investigator who has. If there is some database out there where Agency Z has listed that applicant X had a SR to the drug question and another agency discovers that X was not hired, they may very well not even test that applicant. I suspect that is happening here in Kentucky. If the state testing agency tests an applicant for a local agency and that applicant has a SR to a question, I don't think they retest them for another agency. (If there are any Kentucky state examiners out there can you check me on this please.) This whole data base system is ripe for abuse and applicants could easily get blackballed for an SR result in the database.

I have seen similar situations when I worked in recruiting. Smaller agencies oftentimes have limited resources to conduct backgrounds and if they find the applicant was not hired somewhere else and attribute that to an SR polygraph result, they may overlook that applicant.

We examiners can get cynical when we hear what we may refer to as "sob stories" of subjects who had an SR result and did not get hired. Please remember there is a person behind those stories that may be telling the truth. Broad-scope, subjective questions occurring on the heels of a intensive inquiry are a set-up for sensitizing the subject to a target question. The applicant very well may be telling the truth and one false-positive test result should not be the death of their public safety career.

In the words of Bruce Springsteen-

posted 09-28-2011 04:24 PM            

MadDog, I don't know what "bifurcate" means, but it sounds fun... :-)

posted 09-28-2011 08:26 PM         

I can't keep covering for you!

adjective

having two branches or peaks; forked
Origin: ML bifurcatus < L bifurcus < bi-, bi- + furca, fork
transitive verb, intransitive verb ,

to divide into two parts or branches

Don't you remember when we tried to "bifurcate" the Miranda Warning??

Ted

posted 09-28-2011 10:48 PM         

I am so sorry but I think I left you at a disadvantage again. Perhaps the following will help:
M I R A N D A A D V I S E M E N T

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Your Buddy,

posted 09-29-2011 11:25 AM            

quote:

---

I couldn’t agree more. In California, most LE agencies won’t tell you didiley squat about a former applicant until the agency receives a signed/notarized release and waiver from the applicant. If the “data base” side steps or does not require the waiver, then you now have fertile ground for litigation.
Ted

---

This seems possibly very important.

Does anyone know how to get this tid-bit of concern to the PLEA people?

Or, does anyone know if this has already been considered?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-29-2011 12:16 PM            

As an aside, we have the same process here in Maine (as far as the database goes). The Academy keeps track of who's had a test. We ask in the BI process if the candidate had a prior exam, and if somebody says "no" and yet appears in the database, we've got issues already. Generally, they reveal the former test(s), BIs, rejections, etc, and our BI gets a waiver and then gets that info for review.

I've seen the opposite of what you predict. Lots of people don't make the grade the first time (i.e., they get caught lying, usually about something stupid), and they learn to tell the truth in the process. They go to the next test, tell the truth and get hired. I know of nobody who has been blacklisted. (I know of some admitted sex offenders who have kept trying but can't get past the BI when the BI reads the former disclosures, but I don't think that's a bad thing.)

posted 09-29-2011 10:36 PM         

Out of the four participating agencies of PLEA there must be a least a few people who monitor this site. Surely they know this thread exists yet none of them have rung in here???

Ted

posted 09-30-2011 10:44 AM            

Gary Light, who has worked very hard with some dedicated folks to develop and implement PLEA as a national security initiative, does not have a password to this site. He is aware of this discussion, and asked that I post his remarks. Don

A lot of discussion about the PLEA process has occurred and I would like to provide a PLEA perspective on a few of these issues.
I appreciate Don Krapohl providing me with this opportunity.

First and foremost, PLEA is a partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement (LE) agencies designed to implement procedures that are based upon NCCA curriculum, credible research and accepted business (polygraph) practices. The process is strictly voluntary and is based upon polygraph standards used by the Federal Government since 1996. While supported in many ways by federal agencies (FBI, DEA, CBP, ATF, DCIS, NCCA, etc) the leadership of PLEA is provided by state and local LE agencies (LAPD, Houston PD, etc). NCCA provides a significant amount of training and the FBI and others provide logistical support (a LEO site for a database and distance learning courses) from their operating budgets.

The difference between PLEA standards and most others that I am aware of are really twofold:

First - PLEA standards are vigorously enforced. Once an agency requests to participate in PLEA, the agency is assisted in developing policies that are consistent with PLEA standards. Once they have implemented the procedures the agency is held to conducting their examinations in accordance with their policies. EACH examination conducted is subjected to a quality control process and must comply with the standards. Again, the agencies are assisted by other PLEA participants with assistance in conducting quality control for each examination.

Second - The standards are based upon research conducted by research scientists with academic and scientific credentials (Raskin, Barland, Honts, Kircher, etc). The studies upon which they are based are published in credible scientific journals or are based upon government funded research. The research and the manner in which it has been applied have been “successfully” defended before the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. vs Sheffer), the U.S. Congress, and based upon sworn testimony by research scientists qualified as experts in numerous federal district courts. The federal government presented its process and procedure to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and in October, 2002, the report commented favorably on this oversight process. In addition to the NAS comments about the process, the quality of this research supporting the federal government was referred to as “High Quality” by the Committee of Concerned Scientists when these research scientists authored the Amicus Brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is doubtful if any other set of polygraph standards have come under such close scrutiny by the scientific community and have been so successful in their defense.

One tenet we have adopted in the PLEA is to NOT criticize another format or process. We believe this to be unnecessary and counterproductive. The goal of the polygraph community should be to have examiners adopt and appropriately apply a set of standards with which they are formally trained and are supported by credible research.

If an agency, large or small, desires to participate in the PLEA, we seek to accommodate. A large misconception is that the resources of the federal government are used and are unlimited. The resources actually available are very limited; as we have a “zero” budget for the PLEA; the time and efforts of all participants (federal, state and local) are voluntary.

The “Federal Government” has authorized our support but the funding comes from existing budgets of federal, state and local agencies. With current budget constraints, resources available to PLEA are limited.
The PLEA process is very active and moving forward. Currently, five LE departments are seeking accreditation. Based upon our current resources, that is all that can be supported at any one time. We hope to gain a larger capability over time.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions please contact: Leonard Salcedo, LAPD (213-978-0884), Bill Gary, CBP (803-240-6263); Evad Williams, Houston PD (713-308-2555) or Jim Hall, NCCA (803-751-9145).

posted 09-30-2011 12:31 PM            

I knew little about where and why this comes from, and it is good to know that everyone is interested in the enactment and vigorous enforcement of standards.

There is certainly NO suggestion that the PLEA standards are wrong or not based in defensible scientific evidence. The I simply note that participating agencies are prohibited from using some excellent scientific techniques such as the Utah and the DLST, and I do not understand the advantages of that restriction.

Also, I am not a legal person, but my recollection of US v Scheffer was that the court upheld the exclusion of polygraph evidence from use by the defense in a military trial, while the defendant was seeking the admission of polygraph evidence as valid and reliable.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that the argument was all that successful. Does anyone know more about the meaning of Scheffer?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 09-30-2011 01:35 PM            

Ray,

You miss the point. US v. Sheffer settled a rule of law (Rule 702) and was not intended to determine the "admissibility" of polygraph. The Committee of Concerned Scientists took the opportunity in the Amicus Brief to identify quality polygraph research that exists to support our discipline. The scientists authoring that document are considered the most credible in the field of polygraph and this provided them with a national forum.

As NCCA routinely receives requests from law enforcement agencies for assistance in preparation for their appearance in legal/administrative tribunals, we established a protocol to provide credible technical opinions for these agencies. Routinely we use the research and the language provided in the Amicus Brief. To date this course of action has been very successful in supporting our customers. The Amicus brief supports four very basic precepts and the following is a very abridged version:

1) A recognized standardized format must have been used; 2) The format must have been applied in compliance with the rules of that format 3) The examiner is formally trained in that format, 4) The format is supported by credible research (to be credible the research; the scientists must have the appropriate academic and scientific credentials and the research should be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or its equivalent).

Finally, Ray, we limited the number of formats used by the PLEA because since 1996 there has been no issue confronting the federal government that could not be resolved using these formats. Additionally we have successfully defended each of these techniques in various courts.

We don't say ours is the only way or the best way; but it is our way (and we can defend all aspects of each examination). If you have ever attended one of our Senior Examiner Courses you know we will not criticize another format, we only forward ours.

I will stop bothering Don Krapohl now, he has been more than kind. If at some time in the future either myself or others involved in the PLEA are given access this cite we would enjoy continuing the discussion.

Lunch is over, must get back to work.

Thanks

posted 09-30-2011 01:41 PM         

The military judge denied the motion based on Military Rule of Evidence (”M.R.E.”)Rule 707, which provides that a polygraph examination shall not be admitted into evidence. The Respondent was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered
by an accused to support his credibility violates his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to present a defense.

posted 09-30-2011 04:54 PM            

It seems the court of appeals reversed the conviction based on the violation of rights by excluding the polygraph evidence, and the supreme court upheld the conviction thereby reversing the reversal.

Anyway, I think Gary Light clarified that the real value of the Scheffer case is not the success of the case itself, but the successful filing of the Amicus Brief, which does a good job anchoring for the court and for us a lot of good scientific wisdom about the polygraph.

It is a strong position to argue from: a standardized approach based on the scientific evidence.

The Honts and Peterson (1996) Amicus Brief is just as important today as it was 15 years ago. As it is aging a little, it will be important, in the future, to ensure that our methods and practices make use of new information - or we are at risk for accusations of stasis if we do not continue to incorportate new knowledge from studies published after 1996.

Useless trivia re the Scheffer Amicus Brief, submitted by Honts and Peterson (1996):

• Honts reported a mean accuracy of the CQT as .905 (single issue exams), which is not significantly different than the .904 mean accuracy rate for diagnostic (single issue) exams in the most recent meta-analysis.
  
• many or most of the cases in the research samples used in the studies city by Honts and Peterson were conducted by using the Utah ZCT. Patrick & Iacono (1991) are an exception, and used the Federal ZCT, while stimulating the questions in between charts in the manner described in the studies on the Utah ZCT.
  

Frank Horvath gave me a nice professional arse-chewing at the APA regarding the new meta-analysis - and he was correct - that polygraph techniques or formats, as we tend to think of them, do not differ in statistically significantly different ways from each other, and the differences are therefore arbitrary and meaningless. Techniques emerged, in the past, as modifications of each other out of sometimes innovative attempts at improvement, and sometimes proprietary interests in owning a polygraph technique that is different (purportedly better) than other techniques in some complex way. What Frank did not yet know was that we found just that in the meta-analysis, and stated in the report that although mean accuracy levels may differ a little, the accuracy rates for validated polygraph techniques tend not to differ in statistically significant ways.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 10-11-2011 12:10 PM         

Hello everyone,

I typically do not monitor this forum and I was just notified of this discussion. Gary Light did an excellent job giving everyone a short overview of the PLEA program. Unfortunately, the best forum for this would be a face-to-face discussion but I will attempt to answer some of the questions or concerns that were raised.

Ted was surprised to find out about the PLEA from George’s website. Since 2009, examiners involved with PLEA have been attempting to inform fellow examiners of the program by presenting the material during AAPP, APA conferences and Senior Examiner courses, which are held numerous times per year throughout the country. In addition, the voluntary participants of PLEA have been individually trying to get the “word” out during conferences.

Ted Todd
“I just saw this on the net and it is quite disturbing to me. At a time when we should all be on the same page, 3-4 agencies get together and write a new set of guidelines??”

In 2008/2009, at my boss’ request, I inquired about acquiring some form of “accreditation” for the polygraph unit. I met with Gary Light and presented the idea of “Standardization and Accreditation” for State and local law enforcement polygraph units. I asked Gary if they (Feds) could help us with this project, because of the complexity and the lack of funding for such a task. Gary graciously offered to help and started the ball rolling.

Ted Todd
“Anyone ever heard of AAPP, APA or NPA? Not to even mention ASTM!”
“John? Len? Please feel free to ring in here but I feel as though the rest of us in the LE Polygraph field have been left in the dark??”

Initially we decided that best course of action was to approach the APA and AAPP Board of Directors (BoD) and ask them to help us by participating and overseeing this project. Both, the APA and AAPP declined to participate. We were advised that they were not a “regulatory board,” in addition to other concerns. Maybe Barry can give us a better understanding of what took place during these meetings.

Ted Todd
“The agencies involved are DCIS, CBP, LAPD and HPD (Houston). What the HAAALE even brought that group together? What gives these guys the right to go off on a tangent when the rest of the polygraph world is trying to get on the same page? Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?”

For years there has been a lack of standardization in our industry. Everyone talks about it being a good thing for our profession but, so far, we have not been able to accomplish the task. However, most importantly the motivation behind PLEA is the new terrorism threats (insider threats) all law enforcement agencies are now facing and the repeated attempts by terrorist organizations to infiltrate law enforcement agencies (mine being one of them). We felt the best way of combating this threat was through standardization, accountability, training and networking.

rcgilford
“I support a standardized process, but I am not at all convinced that this "accreditation manual" will be successful. I think there will be too many bureaucratic standards that are routine and familiar for some agencies, but considered too burdensome for smaller agencies. It sounds like it was written with federal polygraph programs, who have the manpower and resources, in mind.

These standards are not new; LE agencies have been using them for years. When the standards were drafted we also considered the needs of smaller agencies so as not to hinder any LE agency from completing their mission. PLEA has mentors in place that will assist/guide LE agencies interested in LEAP. The size of their polygraph program is not an issue. This will be especially beneficial for agencies that only have one or two examiners and do not have a QC program in place. In addition, we provide a generic SOP to agencies that do not have one. The agency only needs to type their name on the SOP and delete what is not relevant or add what they need in order to comply with their agency standards or state law. We are currently working with several small agencies (one or two examiners) and they have been happy to receive the feedback and guidance.

rcgilford
“I can just imagine how my agency chief would react to another agency telling him they don't agree with his test results and do it again”

This is a voluntary program and if an agency decides to participate, they will do so with the understanding that their work is subject to QC review. The goal is for them to eventually set up their own QC program but, until that happens, QC is being provided by members of PLEA or Federal accredited programs. That is a part of the QC process with any agency, which means that the QC process is working as it was designed. From a liability perspective, I don’t see how any department Chief would not want the peace of mind of knowing that their examiners have a “checks and balances” procedure in place and are running proper exams. I see it as an example of “Best Practices.”

The Los Angeles Police Department’s polygraph unit was the first law enforcement polygraph unit to be accredited by PLEA. The Houston Police Department’s polygraph unit was next, becoming accredited in December, 2010. Both Evad (Program Manger - HPD) and I, having successfully completed the accreditation process, have realized the significant benefits to our departments for having completed the process. We both agree that senior management in our departments were very satisfied when an outside, credible group of subject matter experts reviewed our polygraph process and procedures and found them to be in line with standardized business practices.

blalock
“What concerns me most is that in light of what the scientific literature is showing more and more, the Utah ZCT, DLST, use of directed lie comparisons, and Empirical Scoring System all seem to be excluded in the program. What about those examiners who KNOW that there are better ways of administering examinations, must violate their own code of ethics and adhere to techniques that in some cases are less than optimal... “.

We understand that there are other validated techniques (such as the Utah, DLST, etc.) available but we felt it was necessary to start with a handful of validated techniques in order to keep the program manageable. The currently approved techniques have proven to be diverse enough to accomplish the mission for most LE agencies. However, the standards are designed to be fluid and, in the future, the PLEA Board of Directors (BoD) will decide what is going to be included or deleted from the standards, based on the input from participating agencies. We are currently working on a revision and by early 2012 the DLST will be part of the standards. The BoD will eventually be comprised of State and local LE agencies, with only one member from a federal government agency.

Ted Todd
“A data base? Really? Is this similar to the Illegal Immigrant Data Base, The No Fly List Data Base and the Fraudulent Medicare Provider Data Base? (and thousands of other federally funded data bases?)”

Agencies that “voluntarily” participate in PLEA are not required to participate in the Polygraph Information Network (PIN Database). Agencies that do want to participate in PIN Database will NOT know what the outcome of an exam – no results will be posted. The ONLY information they will have access to are admissions to other Agencies, made by police applicants, regarding their participation in felony crimes, terrorism, counter intelligence and countermeasures. If none of these admissions are made, an applicant’s name will not appear in the Database. This is only a tool to assist other agencies.

I realize that there are still some legal issues that still need to be worked out and each State has their own laws that address the sharing of this information. Some agencies may not be able to participate, but the Database is only one portion of this program. The Database will not be brought on line until some of these legal issues are addressed.

Ted Todd
“Since federal law enforcement can not even get on the same page as other federal law enforcement agencies, do you think a federal law enforcement agency should be dictating polygraph policy to the rest of the law enforcement community while ignoring the scientific community?”

The feds or the PLEA BoD are not dictating polygraph policy to the LE community and ignoring the scientific community, the PLEA BoD is part of the LE community. We do work with the scientific community (all techniques included in the PLEA Guide are validated techniques which meet APA standards) but please remember this program is in its infancy and we need a place to begin. I understand that we have a long way to go, but we’ve taken the first step. It is up the LE community that is, or will be, part of PLEA to draft the standards in the future. And let’s not forget…it is a VOLUNTARY program.

Ted Todd
“And no, I am not bashing any of the terrific federal agents we have today. I am bashing a system that is so caught up in its own red tape that it can no longer function with any real efficiency.”

This was designed to be a State and local LE program, not a federal program. In approximately two years the Feds will no longer be part of the program, with the exception of one Federal examiner who will remain on the BoD. The Database will be managed by the FBI, because by law, the FBI is the only agency that may legally collect this type of information. The NCCA will continue to assist us by providing Senior Examiner courses and on-line training.

The goal of PLEA program is to standardize polygraph practices to the extent possible within our Departments and also to extend this ability to the entire law enforcement polygraph community. To achieve this goal, the PLEA has dedicated itself to initially adopting a set of standards that both fully serve the polygraph missions of each Department and are credible to the practitioner in the polygraph suite.

For the PLEA program to be successful, the PLEA Board of Directors believes the program must be available to all law enforcement agencies that wish to implement these standards, regardless of the resources available to those departments. In order to assist the law enforcement community we have sought to not only make the PLEA application process as simple as possible but to also provide an agency with assistance (at no cost) in implementing these standards. We believe PLEA has attained this balance while maintaining a very credible inspection process that ensures accreditation through the PLEA program will be considered value added for each department that completes this process.

To make the PLEA program accessible and to provide as much assistance to the law enforcement polygraph community as possible like I mentioned above, we have in place mentoring programs as well as several educational tools for those who choose to become involved. The educational opportunities and the reference library are described below. The mentor program assigns subject matter experts to assist a department in implementing polygraph procedures that are consistent with PLEA standards. The accreditation process has been well received by current PLEA participants and although the requirements are comprehensive, the assistance provided thoroughly prepared the Houston and Los Angeles Police Departments to undergo the PLEA inspection process.

The PLEA is attempting to assist as many law enforcement agencies as possible adopt and successfully implement polygraph standards, which should result in improved service for the jurisdictions supported by that department.

posted 10-11-2011 07:46 PM         

"Ted was surprised to find out about the PLEA from George’s website. Since 2009, examiners involved with PLEA have been attempting to inform fellow examiners of the program by presenting the material during AAPP, APA conferences and Senior Examiner courses, which are held numerous times per year throughout the country."

Surprised is an understatement. Your entire 65 page manual is available on George's site. How did it get there? How are you going to keep the "data base" from getting there? I think you have a serious security issue.

I am very active in my associations. I am on the BOD for CAPE and have not missed a meeting in years. With the exception of one BOD member, none of us have ever heard of this. You are a CAPE member as well. Was this information ever provided to YOUR local association? CAPE is one of the largest associations in the nation! I was at AAPP in May and heard nothing about this.

Don't get me wrong Len, I beleive standardization is a great thing...if done correctly. I just don't see where a few can decide that they are going to establish a regulatory board and expect the masses to come running?

Anyway, thanks for the reply and it was good to hear from you. I am sure we will all be talking about this much more in the future. I also want to thank you and the others for all of your hard work on the program. Any work which advances the field of polygraph is good work! I just wish more of knew the work was taking place.

Ted

posted 10-12-2011 11:48 AM         

Sincerely,

posted 10-12-2011 04:46 PM         

Valid question. Yes I do keep records for a set amount of time and then they are destroyed. I have also taken a few additional precaustions:

1. None of the computers I use to conduct
exams are internet capable.

2. I do not maintain records in a data base.

3. Once the exam is completed, it is
transfered to a CD and deleated from the
originating computer.

4. The CD and any paper records such as
notes or releases are then moved to
a discrete off site storage facilty.

5. The storage faciltiy is alarmed 24/7 and
is monitored by security staff.

6. My records are not a "High Value Target"
for GM or Wikileaks like a federal data
base would be.

I don't doubt that my records might someday fall victim to a thief or fire but I have gone the extra mile to minimize that chance.

Back to one of my original questions:

How did the PLEA's “Law Enforcement Sensitive Information” get posted in its entirety on GM's site? This is also not the first time that this type of information has oozed out of a federal program(s) and right onto GM's site.

posted 10-12-2011 07:22 PM            

Thank you for the clarification. Training being made available to all law enforcement agencies regionally throughout the U.S. at minimal or low cost is a great benefit to hundreds of examiners nationwide. Portal training offering self-paced modules is also a great model for the future of polygraph training, and I applaud PLEA for spearheading this effort. The mentoring process is something that field examiners have asked for and need. In fact, this is a common topic of discussion at both state and national association leadership meetings. I believe these types of efforts move our profession forward and certainly not backward. Heaven knows that local, county and state agencies need whatever low or no cost training opportunities are made available. Finally, standardization of polygraph practices is also a noteworthy goal. In light of the recent Executive Summary of the Preliminary Report of the Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques, law enforcement examiners are asking me why ESS is not yet approved in the PLEA program.

I have to admit they make a great point. In fact, in light of the initial findings of this summary, both the Federal ZCT and Federal You Phase meet the minimum requirements of event-specific diagnostic examinations used for evidentiary purposes, but only if ESS is used to score them,. I am told that PLEA allows participating agencies to use both the Federal ZCT and the Federal You Phase examinations. However, I am also told that only the Federal 3 and 7 Position Scoring Systems are authorized by PLEA. Interestingly enough, the Federal 3 Position Scoring System did not even make the cut for Evidentiary, Paired-Testing, or Investigative techniques. The Empirical Scoring System has clearly been established as a valid and accurate handscoring system with an abundance of empirical evidence. Not allowing or not encouraging participants of PLEA to use ESS, means that law enforcement agencies sponsored by PLEA cannot run an exam that meets evidentiary requirements. To those Board Members of PLEA: In light of the vast data demonstrating their effective marriage, I implore you to allow these agencies to use ESS to score the Federal ZCT and Federal You Phase as soon as possible.

Len, you stated that PLEA started with a few techniques that "accomplish the mission for most LE agencies." Georgia LE agencies regularly testify in court about their polygraph examinations. These examinations are administered knowing full well that both sides have agreed and stipulated for their admission into court and that a diagnostic opinion will be rendered as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

If it is simply a matter of getting a vote by the Board, please do so. There are folks that are available to provide the necessary material in order to add it to the PLEA manual, and even provide training to PLEA members on the ESS, if necessary.

posted 10-12-2011 11:56 PM         

C2.10. RECORDING EXAMINATIONS (Audio/Video).
C2.10.1. Polygraph examinations will be recorded in accordance with agency policy.

C2.10.2. An examinee will be made aware of an examination that is being recorded in
accordance with agency policy and consistent with public law.

I really hope the PLEA guys did not spend too much time on this one since it in no way, shape or form,constitutes "Standardization". It is nothing more than "weasel language". You either do-or you don't. That is why a standard is called a standard.

"What is a Standard?
A Standard is a published specification that establishes a common language, and contains a technical specification or other precise criteria and is designed to be used consistently, as a rule, a guideline, or a definition".

Ted

posted 10-13-2011 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Back to one of my original questions:

How did the PLEA's “Law Enforcement Sensitive Information” get posted in its entirety on GM's site? This is also not the first time that this type of information has oozed out of a federal program(s) and right onto GM's site.

---