- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 14, 2001, 07:25 AMQuote from: Fred F. on Jun 13, 2001, 11:16 PMFred,
We need this to happen in California also.
Public safety officers in California have protections similar to those enacted in Nevada under Section 3307 of the California Government Code:
Quote3307. (a) No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to a lie detector test against his or her will. No disciplinary action or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer refusing to submit to a lie detector test, nor shall any comment be entered anywhere in the investigator's notes or anywhere else that the public safety officer refused to take, or did not take, a lie detector test, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a subsequent hearing, trial, or proceeding, judicial or administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused to take, or was subjected to, a lie detector test.
(b) For the purpose of this section, "lie detector" means a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device, whether mechanical or electrical, that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.
I agree with all the points Gino makes about additional protections that are needed. The protection against even being asked to submit to a lie detector "test" is an important one, because even if no written notes of an employee's refusal to submit are made, mental notes most certainly will be, and the kinds of hard-to-prove retaliation that Nate and Fred mentioned may follow.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jun 14, 2001, 01:03 AMRegrettably, this legislation does not offer job applicants the same protection as those already hired.
In California, we should insist that anti-polygraph legislation
1) Cover applicants as well as those already hired.
2) Deal with all employees, not just police officers.
3) Prevent an employer from even requesting that an employee or applicant submit to a "lie-detector" test.
5) Address the situations of those who have already been wronged by "lie-detection." This would mean re-instating the applications of those who were wrongly dismissed because of this tea leaf reading and possibly preventing agencies from sharing the fact that an applicant has failed a polygraph with other agencies.
In California, we should insist that anti-polygraph legislation
1) Cover applicants as well as those already hired.
2) Deal with all employees, not just police officers.
3) Prevent an employer from even requesting that an employee or applicant submit to a "lie-detector" test.
5) Address the situations of those who have already been wronged by "lie-detection." This would mean re-instating the applications of those who were wrongly dismissed because of this tea leaf reading and possibly preventing agencies from sharing the fact that an applicant has failed a polygraph with other agencies.
Posted by Fred F.
- Jun 13, 2001, 11:16 PMWe need this to happen in California also.
Nate, I see your point in that they possibly could be biased. However, if state grants and monies are at stake and enough compliance issues are raised, this would be troublesome to the PD's.
Another thought would be that they can make those who refuse "pay" by giving them rotten shifts, refusing vacations, etc. This would be difficult to disprove.
Fred F.
Nate, I see your point in that they possibly could be biased. However, if state grants and monies are at stake and enough compliance issues are raised, this would be troublesome to the PD's.
Another thought would be that they can make those who refuse "pay" by giving them rotten shifts, refusing vacations, etc. This would be difficult to disprove.
Fred F.
Posted by Nate
- Jun 13, 2001, 08:22 PMSounds like great efforts, but to be honest, wouldn't the police department be biased towards the individuals that refused to submit versus the ones that complied? I mean if a police department asks a police officer to submit to one and they don't, I can see the PD looking at that as a sign of defiance towards orders and not disqualify him/her but give him the "better qualified applicant" letter on promotions. In essence it's like "pick your poison". Just some thoughts. :-/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 13, 2001, 02:02 PMNevada Assembly Bill 282, which gives peace officers the right to refuse to submit to a lie detector "test" (and prohibits retaliation against those who refuse), passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the Nevada legislature and was approved by the governor on 5 June 2001. The bill also prohibits law enforcement agencies from forcing those who file complaints to submit to a lie detector "test" before investigating the allegations. A legislative history of AB 282 is posted on-line here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/Reports/history.cfm?ID=3986
and the amended text of the bill is available here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/bills/Amendments/A_AB282_467.html
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/Reports/history.cfm?ID=3986
and the amended text of the bill is available here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/bills/Amendments/A_AB282_467.html