- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by treetop
- Jul 12, 2003, 03:49 AMI am going to hold off on filing anything else. I am not too far away from having my polygraph test and background investigation started. If I can pass the polygraph using the information and skills I learned in TLBTLD, then I will not worry about getting my records. If I fail the poly, then I will pursue it.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 10, 2003, 03:57 AMtreetop,
I don't think the California Public Records Act allows any state or local agency to make such an arbitrary rule.
5 U.S.C. 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) does not apply to non-federal agencies. That LASD would cite it in denying your request suggests a disturbing degree of ignorance and/or ineptitude on the part of the person(s) who responded to your request.
The above reference is to the CPRA. I think one could credibly argue that the kinds of questions asked in a polygraph test are not the kinds of questions envisaged by the language of the law, which seeks to protect tests of knowledge from public disclosure. Releasing your polygraph results to you would not enable you or anyone else to "cheat" on a polygraph examination.
And even if the polygraph questions asked of law enforcement applicants were deemed to be exempt from disclosure under the CPRA, there would be no basis for withholding all information regarding an applicant's polygraph examination (e.g., the polygrapher's report regarding the examination, including any admissions allegedly obtained, the applicant's score, and even the charts themselves, which typically do not include the questions asked).
I think you should appeal the LASD's decision to withhold the requested material. You might wish to get legal counsel to help you in doing this. I think Twoblock is right; you may well have to file a civil suit to force the LASD to comply with the law.
Quote1) the Department's contemporaneous rule, which states only current and contemporaneous records of events, occuring two years prior to the date of request, can be produced;
I don't think the California Public Records Act allows any state or local agency to make such an arbitrary rule.
Quote2) 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b) (7) exempts any investigation records compiled for Law Enforcement purposes;
5 U.S.C. 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) does not apply to non-federal agencies. That LASD would cite it in denying your request suggests a disturbing degree of ignorance and/or ineptitude on the part of the person(s) who responded to your request.
Quote(3) Government Code 6254 (g), which does not require disclosure of test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used for employment or academic purposes."
The above reference is to the CPRA. I think one could credibly argue that the kinds of questions asked in a polygraph test are not the kinds of questions envisaged by the language of the law, which seeks to protect tests of knowledge from public disclosure. Releasing your polygraph results to you would not enable you or anyone else to "cheat" on a polygraph examination.
And even if the polygraph questions asked of law enforcement applicants were deemed to be exempt from disclosure under the CPRA, there would be no basis for withholding all information regarding an applicant's polygraph examination (e.g., the polygrapher's report regarding the examination, including any admissions allegedly obtained, the applicant's score, and even the charts themselves, which typically do not include the questions asked).
I think you should appeal the LASD's decision to withhold the requested material. You might wish to get legal counsel to help you in doing this. I think Twoblock is right; you may well have to file a civil suit to force the LASD to comply with the law.
Posted by treetop
- Jul 05, 2003, 09:43 PMI received a reply from LASD today. It says the following
" Our officer is in receipt of your June 15, 2003, letter requesting your background investigation records. According to Department and Public Records Act protocol, these records are exempt from disclosure based on 1) the Department's contemporaneous rule, which states only current and contemporaneous records of events, occuring two years prior to the date of request, can be produced; 2) 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b) (7) exempts any investigation records compiled for Law Enforcement purposes; and, (3) Government Code 6254 (g), which does not require disclosure of test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used for employment or academic purposes."
There it is there. Any thoughts or comments?
" Our officer is in receipt of your June 15, 2003, letter requesting your background investigation records. According to Department and Public Records Act protocol, these records are exempt from disclosure based on 1) the Department's contemporaneous rule, which states only current and contemporaneous records of events, occuring two years prior to the date of request, can be produced; 2) 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b) (7) exempts any investigation records compiled for Law Enforcement purposes; and, (3) Government Code 6254 (g), which does not require disclosure of test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used for employment or academic purposes."
There it is there. Any thoughts or comments?
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 30, 2003, 12:30 PMtreetop
Having never gone through LE application process, I can't give you first hand knowledge. The many posts that I have read on these boards indicates you will be, what I call, blacklisted which I, also, believe is unlawful.
Failed applicants, who have posted here will have to advise you on this subject.
If I were in your position, I would apply to another agency and if I was denied employment because of the past poly failure then I would file a Federal action. Federal courts are where the rubber meets the road. State courts seem to operate on the buddy system. State judges have to depend on votes to get their jobs, therefore they are deal makers. Let no one kid themsleves, they DO make political and other deals.
Having never gone through LE application process, I can't give you first hand knowledge. The many posts that I have read on these boards indicates you will be, what I call, blacklisted which I, also, believe is unlawful.
Failed applicants, who have posted here will have to advise you on this subject.
If I were in your position, I would apply to another agency and if I was denied employment because of the past poly failure then I would file a Federal action. Federal courts are where the rubber meets the road. State courts seem to operate on the buddy system. State judges have to depend on votes to get their jobs, therefore they are deal makers. Let no one kid themsleves, they DO make political and other deals.
Posted by treetop
- Jun 30, 2003, 04:02 AMTwoblock,
Thanks for the advice. I will give the LASD a week or so to reply. If they do not relpy, I will consider filing a suit. Here is another question. If I apply at another LE agency, the background will require me to list all the agencies I have applied with and list what steps I have completed. Taht means I will have to admit that I took a poly with LASD. Will the agency I am appling with be able to the poly results or any other information from LASD?
Thanks for the advice. I will give the LASD a week or so to reply. If they do not relpy, I will consider filing a suit. Here is another question. If I apply at another LE agency, the background will require me to list all the agencies I have applied with and list what steps I have completed. Taht means I will have to admit that I took a poly with LASD. Will the agency I am appling with be able to the poly results or any other information from LASD?
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 29, 2003, 08:47 PMtreetop
It is beginning to look as if you passed the poly and became one of those "weeded out". Otherwise why are they not answering as I believe they are required to do?
You may have to file a civil lawsuit using the appropriate Public Records Venue. You can do this pro se and be sure to include the no answer charge. The court's juresprudence are tolerant of nonprofessionals. Also, be sure to ask for attorney fees and costs. Since you have to file the suit to get records, when you win they are required to pay these costs. I, also, believe it wouldn't be hard to get an attorney to take this.
Being in the mining business, I have taken on some powerful adversaries and won. However, in my spare time, I studied federal law for nearly five years and continue to do so. Your computer will get you into just about any law library. If you decide to do this, let me know. I think I can give you a pro se link.
It is beginning to look as if you passed the poly and became one of those "weeded out". Otherwise why are they not answering as I believe they are required to do?
You may have to file a civil lawsuit using the appropriate Public Records Venue. You can do this pro se and be sure to include the no answer charge. The court's juresprudence are tolerant of nonprofessionals. Also, be sure to ask for attorney fees and costs. Since you have to file the suit to get records, when you win they are required to pay these costs. I, also, believe it wouldn't be hard to get an attorney to take this.
Being in the mining business, I have taken on some powerful adversaries and won. However, in my spare time, I studied federal law for nearly five years and continue to do so. Your computer will get you into just about any law library. If you decide to do this, let me know. I think I can give you a pro se link.
Posted by treetop
- Jun 29, 2003, 05:59 PMI sent at new certified letter under the California Public Records Act and have yet to receive a response. It has been over 10 days. Now what?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 15, 2003, 04:15 AMIt may be to early to tell whether LASD plans to take any action regarding your request. I would note, though, that the appropriate law under which to request the records you seek is the California Public Records Act, not the Privacy Act (which applies only to federal agencies).
When I filed a CPRA request for documentation regarding the LASD polygraph program back in 2001, the requested documents were sent to me seven days later.
When I filed a CPRA request for documentation regarding the LASD polygraph program back in 2001, the requested documents were sent to me seven days later.
Posted by treetop
- Jun 15, 2003, 03:25 AMI read The Lie behind the Lie Detector and in the back few pages, it gives an example of a Privacy Act request for information. I wrote a letter very similar to the one in the book and sent it, certified-return receipt mail to the personnel/records office of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. They received this letter in early May (according to the return receipt). I requested all the documents, charts, information that the privacy act letter example said to request, however, I have not received any responce from LASD. Do you think they blew me off or do these requests take more time? Any thoughts of this?