posted 11-22-2009 04:33 PM            

a convict has recently requested through his attorney, that we release all documents, charts, papers, notes and reports concerning his PCSOT testing in the past. I believe there have been 3 or 4 different tests over the past 6-7 years. They want it all.

There is no current judicial or legal action ongoing, he and his attorney "just want it." If we release this, we are bound to see it all on AP.

The argument of the classified nature regarding the methods and manners of the testing have fallen on deaf ears with regard to the big boss. He seems to simply want to turn it all over, b/c it's a closed file and therefore "the peoples" property.
The argument of similarity to sources, etc are also falling on deaf ears, as he sees the polygraph program as simply an investigative tool and since its on the internet, we have nothing to lose by releasing all of the information.

Any idea of how to convince the guy in charge that releasing all information would possibly be a detriment to the future program.

I need ideas ASAP.

posted 11-22-2009 05:05 PM            

First, polygraph programs are not subject to medical ethics standards for which the patient may have a stipulated right to access or review all information.

There are some things about PCSOT program operations and field examination proceedures that are not online, because they are training issues. Access to additional information could serve to fuel the offender's efforts to defeat or challenge the polygraph or its use.

Release of all information to the other party in an adversarial justice system context is a bit like loading your enemie's gun. Sure there may be ethical reasons and established precident for reasonable release of information - such as when reasonable release of information will facilitate a more sensible and less wastefully aggressive legal process. That is what DISOCOVERY is for. But this really should be limited to discovery. Why load your enemie's gun when you are not required to do so - because there is no legal filing. To do so only increases exposure and liability for the individual examiner and the agency.

I suggest you send a polite and professional letter to the requestor, stating that it is not necessary at this time to release all information. You might go so far as to suggest that you will gladly comply with any subpoena at the time of any future. At the very least you should inform your own food chain of the increased exposure. Responding to a subpoena about after a filing is probably less risky.

.02

r

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

posted 11-23-2009 01:36 AM            

I like the idea of the response to a subpoena idea, but I'm a little confused.

Is this SO currently on parole?

Is he a level 1,2,or 3?

If he has had only a few PCSOT exams in 6-7 yrs, I presume he is not in any containment program.

Were these exams conducted by LEO or private?

Is the Big Boss LEO?

If so, what is the Dept. SOP on the release of case files that are not in active prosecution.

If the Big Boss considers poly exams and reports an investigative tool, do you normally release crime scene evidence,statements, photos or other documents of a forensic nature to any shyster thats looking for an excuse to file suit against the city?

It would also seem proper for the SO to file his request through the DA's office, since that's who prosecuted him, and supervised his parole in the first place.

The answer is in Nevada state law.

Each state may be different. What does your legal department say?

posted 11-23-2009 08:40 AM            

About a year ago I had something similar occur and that is what I did and then nothing ever came of it.

posted 11-23-2009 11:01 AM            

A convicted drug dealer, through his attorney, has requested that your department release the full description, make, model and license number of all covert vehicles used in the surveillance that resulted in his arrest and conviction. Additionally he wants the radio frequencies used by the narcotics division during covert operations and photographs of the covert narcotics officers as well as the names of any personnel who provided information that resulted in his arrest and conviction.

Granted, the vehicles are owned and paid for by the (city/county/state) and the radio frequencies are registered and allocated by the FCC. All of the personnel are public servants and employees. Most, if not all of the information requested is somewhere in public records (DMV, state/county garage/HR database and FCC records).

The release of this "public" information although "the property of the people", would be highly detrimental to the safe and successful operation of the department's drug enforcement efforts and would, therefore have an adverse impact on the public safety.

Although not exactly the same circumstances, the release of law enforcement methods and technical information in the instance you describe hinders the law enforcement efforts and endangers the public.

posted 11-23-2009 12:12 PM            

This guy is currently in prison.

The big boss is LEO and his opinion is that since the release is not prohibited, we must release it. Our opinion is that the release is not required, and would be very detrimental (as stated by Ray) to the over all program.

And, no, there is no ongoing legal activity. The guy and his attorney, "just want it." They have not specified what they are looking for or why they want the files.

This is an uphill battle that shouldn't be, but here in Nevada, we still operate like its 1882...

Thanks again and any additional thoughts or alternative ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Jim