What exactly do they ask on the LAPD polygraph

[atomic84]

I have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph.  I have heard the test is very hard to beat from some and very easy to beat from others.  Any advice please?

[nonombre]

I have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph.  I have heard the test is very hard to beat from some and very easy to beat from others.  Any advice please?

Please expound on exactly what areas of the pre-employment polygraph examination you are trying to "beat?"

Is it drugs?
Felony Theft?
Sexual assault?
Child Abuse?
Drug Running?
Murder?

Don't worry, there are several good citizens on this website would be more than happy to work with you closely and spare no effort to make sure you are successful in your attempt to cheat your way to the position of special trust and confidence you obviously and richly deserve.

Nonombre

[Sergeant1107]

Please expound on exactly what areas of the pre-employment polygraph examination you are trying to "beat?"

Is it drugs?
Felony Theft?
Sexual assault?
Child Abuse?
Drug Running?
Murder?

Don't worry, there are several good citizens on this website would be more than happy to work with you closely and spare no effort to make sure you are successful in your attempt to cheat your way to the position of special trust and confidence you obviously and richly deserve.

Nonombre

Nonombre,

You're a little quick to jump on this.  You may be entirely correct that he has something in his past he wants to hide, but then again you may not.  It might be prudent to withhold judgment until he provides a few more details.

Personally, I have told people that I didn't manage to "beat" the polygraph until my fourth attempt.  I had nothing in my past I was trying to conceal; I used the term "beat" in the sense of some sort of challenge that must be met to continue with the application process.  

Of course, what made it supremely frustrating was that I had no idea why the polygraph kept "beating" me.  I knew then as I know now that I was completely honest in all my answers and had concealed absolutely nothing, yet I inexplicably continued to get "beaten" by the polygraph.  I felt like I was playing a game in which no one explained the rules – they would just let me play and then tell me I lost.

To be fair, I and many others on this board continually counsel people who are looking to lie on their polygraph that they should tell the truth about their background.  While there may be some segment of the members here who seek to let felons, child molesters, and drug dealers into the law enforcement field, I would have to say that the vast majority of members would vigorously oppose such a thing.

[atomic84]

the only thing I have that concerns me are the standard mistakes that most make.  Getting in the car after having a few too many and trying out pot.  Other then that I've lead the life of the good civil servant since maturing into adulthood.  

[Sergeant1107]

the only thing I have that concerns me are the standard mistakes that most make.  Getting in the car after having a few too many and trying out pot.  Other then that I've lead the life of the good civil servant since maturing into adulthood.  

If you are planning on lying to your background investigator because you figure that what you have done are "standard mistakes that most make," I would suggest you change your mind.  

Depending on how many times you smoked marijuana and/or drove while intoxicated, some agencies will disqualify you and some will not.  Be honest about your background and if the agency to which you are applying doesn't want you, so be it.  Apply somewhere else.  You do not want to start off a career in law enforcement by lying your way through the application.  You can't compromise your integrity a little bit; you either compromise it or you don't.

In my opinion the information on this site is not here so that people can lie about their past on a polygraph.  The information is intended to be used by people who intend to be truthful but want to protect themselves from a false-positive.  If there was any way to disseminate the information strictly to those people that is what would be done.  But since there is not the information is made available to everyone.

[nonombre]

Nonombre,

You're a little quick to jump on this.  You may be entirely correct that he has something in his past he wants to hide, but then again you may not.  It might be prudent to withhold judgment until he provides a few more details.

Personally, I have told people that I didn't manage to "beat" the polygraph until my fourth attempt.  I had nothing in my past I was trying to conceal; I used the term "beat" in the sense of some sort of challenge that must be met to continue with the application process.  

Of course, what made it supremely frustrating was that I had no idea why the polygraph kept "beating" me.  I knew then as I know now that I was completely honest in all my answers and had concealed absolutely nothing, yet I inexplicably continued to get "beaten" by the polygraph.  I felt like I was playing a game in which no one explained the rules – they would just let me play and then tell me I lost.

To be fair, I and many others on this board continually counsel people who are looking to lie on their polygraph that they should tell the truth about their background.  While there may be some segment of the members here who seek to let felons, child molesters, and drug dealers into the law enforcement field, I would have to say that the vast majority of members would vigorously oppose such a thing.

Sergeant,

You're right.  The thought of this guy finding his way onto this site to look for ways to potentially "beat" the police pre-employment process got under my skin.

Next time I'll try to take a deep breath first.

However, I'm sure you keep in mind the fact that information provided to one, is given to all.  Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."

Nonnombre

[atomic84]

I've been in the game long enough that I know how certain things work.  There are very few perfect people in the world, and a governmental agency wants the taxpayers to believe that their money is only going to hire the perfect.  Having made a few mistakes does not immediately mean that someone is unfit for a position or would make a bad cop.  However, because of large numbers of candidates and the costs involved an agency like the LAPD cannot take each individual and consider if they have outgrown their past mistakes.  What I would like to do is figure out an edge that would allow me to prove that the forest is more than the trees, and that I have amounted to more then some past decisions.  Sorry if I came off sounding callus with my first post, I diddnt mean to insult anyone's integrity.

[Jeffery]

Sergeant,

You're right.  The thought of this guy finding his way onto this site to look for ways to potentially "beat" the police pre-employment process got under my skin.

Next time I'll try to take a deep breath first.

However, I'm sure you keep in mind the fact that information provided to one, is given to all.  Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."

Nonnombre

Most of us have ethical principles high enough to not let our contempt and disdain for your evil profession let us lower ourselves to assisting those who truly do not belong in a position of trust.

That being said, the need to shed light on polygraphics and bring it out of the darkness (to protect the truly innocent) outweighs the need to keep your (profession's) dirty secrets private.

If a bad guy stumbles onto this site and finds information of value, that is unfortunate, but the root of the problem is your industry's reliance on polygraphics to the exclusion of more costly and time-consuming investigations.

As far as the "buyer beware" with the information on this site being "unproven" -- why don't you step up to the challenge and answer the question once and for all?  You have no proof you can detect countermeasures absent a confession.  All you can do is make wild (and unsubstantiated) accusations of CM use.

[nonombre]

Most of us have ethical principles high enough to not let our contempt and disdain for your evil profession let us lower ourselves to assisting those who truly do not belong in a position of trust.

Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information.  How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not?    At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful.  What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent?  Do you really care?  I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.  

Nonombre

[Matty]

I am torn on this issue. I don't want to see undesirables cheat and are therefore entrusted with a Badge and a Gun. On the other hand, I don't want to see honest people branded liars when that is not the case. I think the polygraph should be used as a tool, to be used in conjunction with a good, thourough background investigation. If the person is a drug user, liar, cheat, molester...yada yada yada, it will come out in the investigation................If it werent for the fact that George was treated like shit by the FBI and LAPD because of a bogus call made by some flunkie FBI Poly examiner, this site wouldn't be here. I say to the good poly examiners out there (I am sure there are many) to police your ranks and weed out the bad apples who want to DQ candidates simply because they have a chance to be a cop of Agent, where the examiner only dreamed of such a thing...

[George W. Maschke]

atomic84,

With regard to the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph, an exact list is not presently available. (UPDATE: A listing has become available; see the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.) However, the Los Angeles Police Department Pre-employment Polygraph Guidelines describe the general areas of inquiry at p. 4:

Background Standards and Areas of Inquiry

The Los Angeles Police Department pre-employment polygraph examinations for police officers are based upon the City of Los Angeles Personnel Department Policy, Public Safety Positions – Background Standards. According to these standards, candidates shall have conducted themselves in a manner, which shows that they respect the law and the rights of others, possess high moral standards of character and integrity, and are dependable, responsible, and conscientious. Each candidate's prior conduct will be evaluated to assure that it meets the following standards:

1. Interpersonal Skills, Sensitivity, and Respect for Others
2. Decision Making and Judgment
3. Maturity and Discipline
4. Honesty, Integrity and Personal Ethics
5. Setting and Achieving Goals
6. Record Checks

Based on these standards, the areas of inquiry in the pre-offer stage are:

1. Employment History
 a. Jobs that were not put on the application
 b. Terminations
 c. Resigned in Lieu of Termination
 d. Disciplinary problems
 e. Falsification of application
2. Employee theft
3. Serious undetected crimes
 a. Sex crimes
 b. Any felony case
4. Illegal drug history
5. Disqualifying acts against another based on personal bias
6. Domestic violence

With regard to one of the areas that concern you, note that polygraphers assume that everyone with a driver license who consumes alcoholic beverages has on some occasion gotten behind the wheel after drinking more than they should have and will falsely deny it when asked, "Did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?" This is a commonly used probable-lie "control" question in pre-employment polygraph screening for law enforcement agencies, and applicants are secretly expected to answer it deceptively and show a reaction to it. Reactions to this question are then compared to reactions to a relevant question such as, "Besides what you told me [assuming some illegal drug use has been admitted], did you ever use an illegal drug?" If one reacts more strongly to the "control" question, then one is assumed to have answered the relevant question truthfully. But if one reacts more strongly to the relevant question, then one is assumed to have answered it deceptively. Perversely, if one makes a pre-test admission about having driven while under the influence of alcohol, and as a consequence reacts less strongly to the question (which will simply be rephrased as, "Besides what you told me, did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?"), it actually increases one's chances of wrongly "failing." For more on "control" questions, as well as other aspects of polygraph practice, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Jeffery]

Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information.

I presume that your discomfort with the dissemination of information about polygraphics as is provided on this site is due to the fact that the information is accurate and you have otherwise no way by which to detect its use?

 How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not?

Respectfully, it is not my problem.  I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think your witchcraft test is a fair way to determine guilt.

At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful.

Really?  That wasn't my experience.

What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent?

Have you missed the point?  This site exists entirely to protect the truthful, innocent examinee-victim from a system that assigns guilt arbitrarily with no scientific basis.

Do you really care?  I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.  

I care that polygraphic screening exams be abolished.  My anger and disdain help fuel my passion for this endeavor.

[Jeffery]

If it werent for the fact that George was treated like shit by the FBI and LAPD because of a bogus call made by some flunkie FBI Poly examiner, this site wouldn't be here.

Exactly.   They pissed off the wrong guy.  George can speak to this himself if he wishes, but I am certain his interest in polygraphics peaked after being wrongly accused of lieing and then having his career plans destoryed (loss of FBI opportunity, damage to Military career etc).  I can't help but think what value he could have contributed with his mid-east language skills and knowledge.

The polygraph community is responsible for this site.  They created this "monster" or rather, "fountain of truth."  If they don't like it, I say "Fuc* them."

They can label this a site of a bunch of liers and whiners; but their whining and oppostion to this site only adds to the credibility and confirms the truthfulness of what is on here.  

[Sergeant1107]

Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."

I'm afraid I simply can't agree with you.  Polygraphy is purported to be a valid scientific test.  If that is so then I don't see how it could possibly matter if the subject of such a test has knowledge of how the test works.  

When you come right down to it that is all the information this site provides.  There is information here regarding how the test is run and what the polygraph examiner is looking for in order to determine if the subject is being deceptive.

Some people will choose to use that information to protect themselves from a false positive, and I have no doubt that others will use that to lie to the authorities and get away with it.  I can't see how that is the responsibility of the people who created this site.

If anything, I believe that the fact a person can spend a few minutes looking at a web site and then "beat" a supposedly objective and scientific test such as the polygraph is one more significant reason to reexamine the validity of that test.  If a person could produce a different set of fingerprints by biting their tongue or thinking exciting thoughts, and by doing so they caused some sort of negative (dangerous) outcome, would that be the fault of the web site which provided the tongue-biting information, or would it be the fault of the authority that chose to rely on a test that can be defeated by such laughably mundane countermeasures?

Enrico Fermi once said, "It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward.  Ignorance is never better than knowledge."  

You can't stuff everything back inside Pandora's box.  Knowledge of the polygraph is out there and is easily available to everyone.  If having that knowledge invalidates the test, then I believe the test was never valid in the first place.

I think it is time to acknowledge that polygraphy cannot survive if everyone who may become subject to a test is aware of the deception that goes on and is also aware of what the examiner is looking for.  Wishing that knowledge was never made widely available is a bit immature, in my opinion.  Move with the cheese.

Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information.  How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not?    At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful.  What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent?  Do you really care?  I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.

Providing information to people who seek it is not wrong.  Citizens engaging in free speech directed at what they believe to be an injustice are not wrong.

I'm sure there are some polygraphers who believe they are making an effort to weed out the truthful from the deceptive.  I'm also sure that a century ago phrenologists believed they were making a good faith effort to identify people with criminal tendencies.

It seems that, in your opinion, providing information is the same as failing to protect the innocent.  If you could explain that I'd be very interested to hear it.  As someone who has dedicated his entire adult life to protecting the innocent I'd be curious to see how I am apparently undermining all the good I've done by providing information.

[Sergeant1107]

Countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis.  Use of them does disqualify one from further consideration in employment.  Information is good, and the postings on this site are good.  If you are informed regarding polygraph examinations and have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, this does not disqualify you, it makes you informed.  The point to center on is  be untruthful to the control questions and truthful to the relevant questions and you will pass your polygraph examination.  

Once again, advice from a polygraph examiner which assures the reader that telling the truth will cause you to pass your polygraph examination.  All of the anecdotal evidence on this site from people who told the truth and failed must not count for much.

I did exactly what you suggest on all four of my polygraphs and failed the first three of them.  In the first one I supposedly lied about using cocaine, in the second I supposedly lied about fighting/committing assaults, and in the third one I supposedly lied about stealing army equipment.  None of those things were even remotely true.

At the time I had no knowledge of countermeasures and (naively) had complete faith in the polygraph as a valid detector of deception.  After all, if it wasn't completely accurate then I wouldn't be forced to go through it, right?  I was completely baffled as to why I kept failing when I knew I wasn't lying about anything.  I went through each test in exactly the same manner, answering the same way each time.  Since I was telling the truth it was easy to keep my answers the same from test to test.  I kept thinking that I must be doing something wrong or that some random anomaly kept popping up to screw up my tests.  Little did I know...

There are many others like me who know they were completely honest on their polygraph examinations and yet were still labeled "deceptive" or "deception indicated."  I am continually amazed whenever I see examiners advise people to "just tell the truth and you'll be fine."