|
Author
|
Topic: Recording Examinations
|
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 11:10 AM
 
I am currious as to what you all think about recording LE Pre-Employment Exams. I do it because it takes little effort and protects both the examinee and myself.I am told that many agencies still don't record the exam. Thoughts? Ted IP: Logged |
Bob
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 01:07 PM
Ted;I've always audio and video recorded every exam, LE-PreEm's were no different. However, as we all know, it does give the opposing side more ammunition 'to nit-pick' your total exam pocedures should the Test come under fire for some reason. Bob IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 02:19 PM
I took this out of a 2007 paper by Don, Mark, Ray and Honts. I think it is a good practice.9. Unless precluded by law, policy or procedure, all
examinations should be recorded in their entirety. In
an age in which video and audio recording technology
is easily available and fully integrated into all modern
field polygraph systems, there is no practical reason to
forgo the advantages of a complete video and audio
recording of all polygraph examinations. It is only
through complete recordings that meaningful quality
assurance is possible. Frankness regarding monitoring
devices helps assure the examinee the test will be
conducted in a professional manner and may assist in
convincing the test examinee that the examiner is being
open and truthful. Brief explanation of any quality
assurance program also assists in establishing a
professional and trustworthy atmosphere. Ted [This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 09-28-2009).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 02:40 PM
If the results of a polygraph examination or even the existance of one are inadmissable as a matter of law such as in the military and federal government, what purpose would the recording of the examination serve?It would have to be separated into two parts, the polygraph test and the subsequent interrogation. Any mention of the existance of a polygraphv examination or the results thereof would be required to be redacted from the post test recording prior to the jury/panel being allowed to view the interrogation and resulting confession. The obvious omissions of portions of the recording or the blnaking out of the references to polygraph would make the recording more suspect to the jury than the lack of audio/video recording. IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 03:47 PM
Skip,
Ya know I luv ya but I have to disagree on this one. I have dozens of homicide, other felony convictions that were based on the admissions made during the Post Test process. Many jurors told the prosecutors that it was that video that lead them to the guilty verdict. Forget the DNA, the eyewitnesses and the fingerprints. The video got the job done.All of these videos had to be redacted at some point and to some extent. Even interviews that did not involve a polygraph have to be redacted by order of the court. The jury seldom gets to see any interview in it's entirety. (Although I wish they could!)
I think the jury is far more likely to become suspicious at the lack of audio or video recording. I have also had defense attorneys grill me on the witness stand in the past for not recording a non-polygraph interview. The truth is the truth. It does not get any better than when the jury gets to see and hear it flowing out of the mouth of the person on trial. Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 06:29 PM
All geat points Ted and Skip, but your original posted question is stickier.Pre-E testing is another animal. Do hiring agencies frequently want to review videos? I know some would answer that it doesn't matter, risk management isn't the same practice as crisis management. While all know I have stated a distrust for ap screening tests---for assorted reasons that aren't important to this discussion, I am curious as to what sorts of trouble takes place in their aftermath---if there is such a thing as aftermath in pre-employ law enforcement testing. But with my Bachelors in Human Resources mgmt, I see an ever widening chasm between civilian hiring practices and law enforcment---from what I understand. Such chasms exist in say--the civilian prohibition against asking someone if they have children (EEOC prohib)in a common job interview versus asking someone if they have ever (insert personal question via comparison here.)Incidentally,it might surprise many what sorts of things Federal laws prohihibit hiring agents can ask a person in a sandard interview. It goes much further than religious, health, sexual, or racial questions.
I have always viewed pre-employ testing for civilian (non-military/intel)law enforcement as valuable, but also like seeing an 18 wheel tractor trailor spewing tons of black smoke---I wonder to myself---wow, how do they get away with that?
I 'spose pcsot has many cops wondering the same thing. Modalities look strange from the outside looking in.An afterthought--on my analogy---I don't mean to imply that pre-employ testing is a pollutant (via "thick black smoke" ref)--but rather compared to the strict emmissions of passenger vehicles, big displacement diesels need only (per epa) a minor ajustment in oil types and some re-arranging of head porting to be stamped "fine" every few years---which by comparison is no regulation at all. p.s. The closest thing to getting personal information in standard job interviewing---other than psychometrics---which really isn't historic juice---is to simply ask; "So Joe, tell me a little about yourself." If he says--for some weird reason that he humped a dog, than you'd better not write it down on paper. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-28-2009).] IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 07:00 PM
In Utah you do not have to record pre-employment exams. It has to be of a criminal nature. However, I record everything! I also have it in the waiver just in case they can't see my web cam pointed at them. In some of my pre-employments I have had admisions of: sex abuse of a child, tax fraud, theft (over $1000), child porn... and the list goes on. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 09-28-2009 08:38 PM
Did/Do you report those as matter of recourse?Any charges? IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 09-29-2009 08:15 AM
Yes - if they are crimes against a person I notify the local LEO where the event occurred or where they reside. I don't know if charges were filed as I have never been called to testify in a case. I have provided copies of my videos to the LEO when necessary.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 09-29-2009 11:48 AM
quote:
Unless precluded by law, policy or procedure...
= weasil language. It's important not to cause problems for folks while we are seeking a best practice solution. That is what this discussion is about: whether it protects us or benefits us to record police/public-service preemployment screening exams. One one hand recording is becomming a well understood standard. Its cheap and easy. Plus, we all know that how we conduct the exam and how we handle the examinee might affect a test. We also know that people sometimes paraphrase each other and sometimes misunderstand each other. Recording provides a potential to cure those simple mistakes. There is obvious benefit to recording, in the form of accountability oversight, restrospective analysis, etc. The real question is: what is the benefit of not recording? Or: how does it benefit us not to require this kind of accountability, oversight and retrospective analysis? If there are simple and correctable errors, then recording provides the opportunity to identify and fix them. If there is a gross error of conduct, recording offers an opportunity to identify and fix it. If we're not doing something wrong, then what would be the difference to us? It could be argued that not recording might benefit only those examiners who aren't doing everything correctly. Even so, there might be polygraph programs that engage in a type of examination or interview activity for which they have decided that it is in there best interests not to record the exams. I dunno.
.02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 09-29-2009 11:58 AM
"2009 Annual Book Of ASTM STANDARDS"Page 1019 5. Pretest Practices 5.8 Screening exams shall be audio/video recorded in their entirety unless precluded by provision 5.2
5.2 All screening exams shall be conducted in compliance with governing local, state and federal regulations and law.
Ted
IP: Logged |
john fyffe
Member
|
posted 09-29-2009 12:01 PM
Besides all the other good reasons for Video taping a polygraph test, you go into a closed room alone with someone of he opposite sex, you better be able to protect youself from false complaints againt youself.IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
