drugs and LEO Background Disclosure

[Marty]

Torpedo,
...let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.

Drew,

Perhaps I misread you earlier. Do you believe that all types of countermeasures are not detectable in a CQT - or only those you intend to utilize?

With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests.  In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question.  Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow.  This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test.  Regards, Drew Richardson

I thought the purpose of the "stim" tests was psychologically conditioning the examinee to be less sensitive to the relevant (assuming "No" is truthful) and vice versa. How often (or if) that works is an open question. I'm curious about whether informed examinees who had decided not to use CM's would be disadvantaged by acquaintance tests.

-Marty

[Kona]

Kona, my friend, you really lack a lot of knowledge about polygraph...and that concerns me because aren't you one of the folks who are freely passing information to others about the polygraph, what to do, etc..

Torpedo,

The information I pass on these boards is based on my personal experience with the polygraph.  I am not making anything up, or embellishing any stories.  I have never professed to be a polygraph expert, rather I opine on the subject based on how the polygraph experience has affected my quest for a job in Law Enforcement.  The people here can either take my advise, or leave it......it's totally up to them.  

Yes,even police departments employ examiners where there are no laws and their training may be less than desireable.

Excuse me, are you insinuating that the 3 different polygraph examiners that conducted my examinations weren't quite up to snuff?  Very interesting.  All three exams were very similar, and all three examiners acted professionally.  These guys were all experienced Detectives with over 20 years on the force, and several years experience in their respective polygraph departments.   In fact, their exams were amazingly similar to the trip reports I've read here on this website.  You could have substituted a LAPD or a FBI polygraph session with mine.  They all use the same techniques, and follow the same basic pattern.  

I wish there was something PERFECT to do these jobs of screening,but right now, it would seem that polygraph performs that mission...

I've got news for you......there is never going to be anything that is perfect for screening police recruit applicants.  Your assertion that the polygraph seems to be performing that mission now is highly debatable.  We have a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the accuracy of the polygraph, and whether countermeasures can be detected.  Again I can only speak from my personal experience that my polygraph examinations were as accurate as flipping a coin when no countermeasures were used, and I told the truth.  Also, the one and only time I used countermeasures and told the truth, worked like a champ for me......I passed with no problem.  

Good luck convincing the masses out there that you can catch a majority of people that utilize countermeasures.  I'll believe it when I see you prove it on the countermeasure challenge.  

Regards,
Kona

[mkyadidas]

i have a similar problem to Ryan's. I'm applying for a job as a police dispatcher.... i have had some drug use in the past, mostly marijuana, and just recently quit (about a month ago).... i don't know wether that is going to disqualify me or since i have been quiting, it'll be okay....

i've seen a lot of different opinions on the board.... and personally i don't know whether polygraphs tests work or not... this is my first one... so i wouldn't know how to cheat it.... i'm mostly an honest person and a bad liar so i don't think that's a good idea for me...

but is the fact that i recently quit grounds of disqualification?

[Kona]

mkyadidas,

The fact that you "quit" smoking dope a month ago isn't going to bode well with any police department that I know of in the USA.  Nothing personal, but I would venture to say that your chances of being hired are located somewhere between slim and none.  You might want to expand your job search to include other professions that are more lenient with regard to your recent drug use.  

Kona