- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 10, 2013, 09:53 AMQuote from: curiouskat on Jan 10, 2013, 04:49 AMOh, one more question (sorry for pestering, but I guess I'm earning my username lol!!)Very often what happens is you have, let's say, 100 qualified applicants, and of that 100, 5 of them engaged in more than "experimental" use of marijuana as teens. Maybe they used used cocaine a few times, maybe they used ecstasy.
I'm on another forum which has a megathread for members who are cops. A guy recently posted that he was thinking of applying for a police job, and that his past drug use was within the requirements to apply (something like 2 times of trying hallucinogenic mushrooms, and some pot use that was well below the department's requirements). The department's policy is no more than 3 uses of any scheduled drug (except for weed, more lenient, and heroin, which was an automatic DQ).
A cop replied, suggesting that the hallucinogens were probably still an automatic DQ, even if the application doesn't outright say so. Why would a department "advertise" a specific number on their application, but still automatically DQ people who are under that number?
Even if the department said that such things are not an automatic disqualifier, they are still going to disqualify the person. If the department has sufficient numbers of qualified applicants, and a few of those have significantly heavier drug use than the others, the drug users will dropped.
It's not an automatic disqualifier, but is a disqualifier if all else is equal.
Posted by curiouskat
- Jan 10, 2013, 04:49 AMOh, one more question (sorry for pestering, but I guess I'm earning my username lol!!)
I'm on another forum which has a megathread for members who are cops. A guy recently posted that he was thinking of applying for a police job, and that his past drug use was within the requirements to apply (something like 2 times of trying hallucinogenic mushrooms, and some pot use that was well below the department's requirements). The department's policy is no more than 3 uses of any scheduled drug (except for weed, more lenient, and heroin, which was an automatic DQ).
A cop replied, suggesting that the hallucinogens were probably still an automatic DQ, even if the application doesn't outright say so. Why would a department "advertise" a specific number on their application, but still automatically DQ people who are under that number?
I'm on another forum which has a megathread for members who are cops. A guy recently posted that he was thinking of applying for a police job, and that his past drug use was within the requirements to apply (something like 2 times of trying hallucinogenic mushrooms, and some pot use that was well below the department's requirements). The department's policy is no more than 3 uses of any scheduled drug (except for weed, more lenient, and heroin, which was an automatic DQ).
A cop replied, suggesting that the hallucinogens were probably still an automatic DQ, even if the application doesn't outright say so. Why would a department "advertise" a specific number on their application, but still automatically DQ people who are under that number?
Posted by curiouskat
- Jan 10, 2013, 04:43 AMThanks!
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 08, 2013, 05:56 PMWhen the applicant fills out his packet, he is asked to list his prior drug use. Some applicants will be disqualified based on what they list, but this is rare. I have had applicants describe marijuana usage on a daily basis that went on for years but stopped a month or two before they applied for a police job.
If the applicant lists something more innocuous, such as a person in their mid-twenties saying they smoked pot three or four times in high school, and no other drugs, that's not a disqualifier. If my background investigation doesn't turn up any reason to suspect additional drug use, there likely won't be a problem. If something comes up where I suspect a lot more drug use (or use of different drugs) than was admitted to, in virtually all cases I can get the applicant to admit to "fudging" the info on their application.
I don't rely on the polygraph to turn up any info. In Connecticut, police applicants have to pass a polygraph prior to being admitted to the academy. To me it is just a hurdle to clear for the applicant. Polygraph examiners in CT have told me they "hate" the questions they are required to ask of police applicants (the questions are required by the police academy council) because they are far too vague and result in too many inconclusives.
If the applicant lists something more innocuous, such as a person in their mid-twenties saying they smoked pot three or four times in high school, and no other drugs, that's not a disqualifier. If my background investigation doesn't turn up any reason to suspect additional drug use, there likely won't be a problem. If something comes up where I suspect a lot more drug use (or use of different drugs) than was admitted to, in virtually all cases I can get the applicant to admit to "fudging" the info on their application.
I don't rely on the polygraph to turn up any info. In Connecticut, police applicants have to pass a polygraph prior to being admitted to the academy. To me it is just a hurdle to clear for the applicant. Polygraph examiners in CT have told me they "hate" the questions they are required to ask of police applicants (the questions are required by the police academy council) because they are far too vague and result in too many inconclusives.
Posted by curiouskat
- Jan 06, 2013, 04:41 PMInteresting discussion.
Out of curiosity, to what extent does the investigator look into the applicant's admitted drug use? If the applicant admits to smoking pot 5 times about 5 years ago, will they call people who were in the applicant's life (past roommates, bosses, and further contacts that those contact provide the investigator) and ask "This person admitted to smoking pot 5 times during the time they were your roommate, were there any other incidents of drug use that you remember?" or do they ask open-ended questions about it or what?
Or is it assumed that since the admissions made were shown to be 'true' by the polygraph, they can be assumed to be accurate and the BI will focus moreso on things that the polygrapher didn't ask about like employment history etc? I guess I'm wondering how extensive the investigation is in the face of current polygraph policies
Thanks
Out of curiosity, to what extent does the investigator look into the applicant's admitted drug use? If the applicant admits to smoking pot 5 times about 5 years ago, will they call people who were in the applicant's life (past roommates, bosses, and further contacts that those contact provide the investigator) and ask "This person admitted to smoking pot 5 times during the time they were your roommate, were there any other incidents of drug use that you remember?" or do they ask open-ended questions about it or what?
Or is it assumed that since the admissions made were shown to be 'true' by the polygraph, they can be assumed to be accurate and the BI will focus moreso on things that the polygrapher didn't ask about like employment history etc? I guess I'm wondering how extensive the investigation is in the face of current polygraph policies
Thanks
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 08, 2012, 07:23 AMI do background checks on applicants for my agency. Nothing you described sounds like it would be an issue.
I don't put a lot of weight into what an applicant's mom says. Most often she describes him in glowing terms, just like all the people he lists as personal references.
The background isn't really about seeing if anyone in the applicant's past will talk badly about them. It's more about looking for evidence of poor decisions (such as prior police records) or patterns of behavior (such as getting fired from several jobs in a row for poor attendance or something similar.)
I don't put a lot of weight into what an applicant's mom says. Most often she describes him in glowing terms, just like all the people he lists as personal references.
The background isn't really about seeing if anyone in the applicant's past will talk badly about them. It's more about looking for evidence of poor decisions (such as prior police records) or patterns of behavior (such as getting fired from several jobs in a row for poor attendance or something similar.)
Posted by oldapplicant
- Dec 01, 2012, 10:38 PMActually, I'm not worried that police wouldn't be able to contact these businesses/people to verify where I lived/worked, but I doubt they'd be able to provide further references from that time period. Will that be an issue?
Posted by oldapplicant
- Dec 01, 2012, 09:26 PMI'm applying for a few different police agencies right now. It is still early in the process for me but I am already worried about the background check.
I'm in my mid 30s now and primary concern is that I can't find much info on old landlords, roommates, and employers of mine in my early 20s. Also I haven't had contact with my parents for a long time now and we are not on good terms.
I'm not in touch with many people from that time any more mostly because I moved across country for my current job about 8 years ago (which I would be leaving for a police job... fingers crossed) so not really having much info available for the investigator to look at for almost an entire 5 year period is very worrying (other than basic job and education info and I'm sure that the manager at the local Dairy Queen has moved on by now and my undergraduate professors never knew I existed lol)
Also I am afraid that my parents may say malicious things about me (my mother constantly accused me of being a drug addict in college and I never touched anything other than a few nights of underage drinking in college. I'd hate for her to be contacted and say all sorts of malicious things about me without the investigator having any other info to go on for a pretty long period of time). Should this be something I mention somewhere along the road?
Thanks for the help!
I'm in my mid 30s now and primary concern is that I can't find much info on old landlords, roommates, and employers of mine in my early 20s. Also I haven't had contact with my parents for a long time now and we are not on good terms.
I'm not in touch with many people from that time any more mostly because I moved across country for my current job about 8 years ago (which I would be leaving for a police job... fingers crossed) so not really having much info available for the investigator to look at for almost an entire 5 year period is very worrying (other than basic job and education info and I'm sure that the manager at the local Dairy Queen has moved on by now and my undergraduate professors never knew I existed lol)
Also I am afraid that my parents may say malicious things about me (my mother constantly accused me of being a drug addict in college and I never touched anything other than a few nights of underage drinking in college. I'd hate for her to be contacted and say all sorts of malicious things about me without the investigator having any other info to go on for a pretty long period of time). Should this be something I mention somewhere along the road?
Thanks for the help!