Statistically, It Ain’t Pretty.¹

The figures vary depending on what source you get them from, but there is at least a 40% – 60% chance your relationship is suffering from some sort of cheating.

• 41% of marriages, one or both spouses admit to cheating, either physical or emotional – this number varies, but 4 out of 10 relationships suffer from infidelity!
• 57% of all men admit to cheating in any relationship they’ve had – nearly 6 out of 10, and these are the ones admitting it!
• 54% of all women admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had – over 1 out of 2 wives admit cheating
• 22% of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives
• 36% of spouses who admit to having an affair with a co-worker – talk about bringing your work home! 1/3 of all spouses find extracurricular romance at work
• 35% of men and women who admit to cheating on business trips
• 31% of marriages that last after an affair has been admitted to or discovered
• 74% of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught – this means 74% are not concerned with being faithful, but the consequences
• 68% of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught – with almost as many women feeling the same way
• 2 years is the average length of an affair

According to DivorceSupport.About.com, infidelity it is one of the most common problems a married couple will face. Statistics vary on this subject, but it’s widely reported that 60% of men and 40% of women will participate in an extramarital affair at some point during their married life.²

How to tell if your spouse is cheating?

1. Your relationship is too important to just go with your “gut” feeling. But that is a good place to start. The human subconscious picks up small ‘tells’ when something is not quite right. If your ‘feeling’ is that something is off, you should try to learn more.
2. Is there a change in behaviors on your spouse’s part?
3. When you attempt to discuss your suspicions, your spouse shuts you down.
4. Your spouse has become distant
5. He/she is working longer hours
6. Your sex life has died off.
7. Check your finances. If there are a large number of unexplained charges, this may be a sign.

Don’t make accusations you can’t back-up!

Don’t confuse the Warning Signs with Proof.

1. Ask your spouse to talk about it. Have a frank, open discussion that allows them to be honest with you.
2. Ask your spouse to submit to a lie detector test. If they refuse, this is a bad sign. People with nothing to hide are rarely afraid to have it proven. In fact, just the opposite, they prefer to have themselves vindicated.
3. In the Carolinas, call The Polygraph Examiner at (800) 497-9305. In other states, refer to the American Polygraph Association for referrals.

Via: OnlineSchools.org

If you would like to discuss the professional services of a polygraph examiner, please contact The Polygraph Examiner at 1-800-497-9305.

1. Source: Associated Press, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy   Date Verified: 2.8.2012
2. http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/cheatinganddivorce/p/infidelitydivor.htm

Because police and government employees are in positions of trust, it is amazing to find that their rights are different from most citizens. Typically, even civilian criminal suspects cannot be forced to take a lie detection exam, but that is not usually the case with police and government employees. While there are plenty of precedents where polygraph exam results CAN be admissible under VERY specific circumstances, for the most part, with a 95% accuracy rating, they are usually used as tools for the prosecution or defense to negotiate with, or to determine involvement.

Equal Opportunity Detection

The Federal EEOC concluded that polygraph tests are non-biased; finds no race, sex, age or national origin bias.² So, while a polygraph may detect changes in galvanic responses on your skin, it doesn’t care what color it is.

Law Enforcement Polygraph Cases

• MICHIGAN - Federal appeals panel sustains the demotion of a police lieutenant who refused to submit to a polygraph examination as part of an internal investigation. The panel rejected her First Amendment objections to the test. “It is clear in this case that the plaintiff’s ‘speech’ was of no public concern whatever and, therefore, is not protected by the First Amendment.” Luty v. City of Saginaw, #07-2035, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2674 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
• NEW YORK - Appellate court dismisses the appeal of a police applicant that was rejected because his polygraph examination indicated deception concerning his involvement with illegal drugs and narcotics. Management did not act irrationally or arbitrarily in relying on the results of their own polygraph test as well as a secondary review conducted by the Vermont state police. Mullen v. County of Suffolk, #2006-03220, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 9671 (3rd Dept.).
• MASSACHUSETTS - Town did not violate state polygraph statute by requiring police officer, accused of sexually molesting two minors, to submit to test to determine whether he should be disciplined after he was granted immunity from prosecution. Furtado v. Town of Plymouth, #06-P-892, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 319, 867 N.E.2d 801, 2007 Mass. App. Lexis 663, 26 IER Cases (BNA) 401.
• MISSOURI - Appellate court in Missouri refuses to overturn an officer’s termination for excessive force and lying because the Police Board considered testimony that he had failed a polygraph examination. There was sufficient other evidence to believe the charges. Kendrick v. Bd. of Police Cmsnrs. of K.C. Mo., 945 S.W.2d 649, 1997 Mo.App. Lexis 948. [1998 FP 91-2]
• MISSOURI - Missouri appellate court sustains termination of officer who refused polygraph; results inadmissible however. Sorbello v. City of Maplewood, 610 S.W.2d 375 (Mo.App. 1980).
• WISCONSIN - Wisconsin’s Fair Employment Act has been amended to allow a state law enforcement agency to administer the test to prospective employees, effective 5/16/97. FEP Manual (BNA) 458:8661 {N/R}
• CALIFORNIA - Appellate court upholds LAPD requirement that officers who volunteer for sensitive assignments must submit to a polygraph test. Los Ang. Police Prot. League v. City of Los. Ang., 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 1192, 1995 Cal.App. Lexis 563. [1995 FP 154]
• MARYLAND -  Maryland appellate court upholds involuntary transfer of all drug enforcement officers who cannot pass a periodic polygraph exam. Calhoun v. Cmsnr. Balt. City Police, 103 Md.App. 660, 654 A.2d 905 (1995). [1995 FP 140]
• MARYLAND - Federal appeals court upholds compulsory polygraph examinations of police officers, demanded by their superiors as part of an administrative investigation of potentially criminal conduct. Wiley v. Mayor of Baltimore, 1995 U.S.App. Lexis 4148 (4th Cir.). [1995 FP 91]
• COLORADO - Colorado appellate court upholds the termination of police officer who refused to take a polygraph exam after his involvement in an off-duty vehicle collision. Harris v. City of Colo. Springs, 867 P.2d 217, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 142 (Colo. App. 1993). [1994 FP 59]
• TEXAS - Federal court in Texas upholds disciplinary action against a police officer who refused to take a polygraph test after his arrest for possession of marijuana. Soto v. City of Laredo, 764 F.Supp. 448 & 454 (S.D.Tex. 1991). [1992 FP 106-7]
• WASHINGTON - Applicant for word processor position with state patrol was lawfully required to pass a polygraph exam. Washington state supreme court rejects all constitutional challenges. O’Hartigan v. State Dept. Persnl., 821 P.2d 44 (Wash. 1991). [1992 FP 171]
• OHIO - Ohio Supreme Court upholds the right of a police chief to order subordinates to take a polygraph examination when they are under suspicion of misconduct. It is unnecessary for the department to have a rule requiring such exams. City of Warrensville Heights v. Jennings, Ohio St 3d 206, 569 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio 1991).

1. AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:   Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies  http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl157.html
2. EEOC Notice N-915 (2/2/87).

Stress

When a defendant claims that the stress of the polygraph made them seem deceitful or that they were not a good candidate for polygraph, “Stress is factored in.” replied FBI Special Agent Rozzi. “The buttons that you’re pressing are not necessarily the ones on the computer; they’re the ones in people’s psyche. The real art with polygraph is the art of interview and interrogation; that’s what it comes down to. Your best polygraph examiners are skilled and experienced interviewers. They get people. They understand who they are, and the polygraph is a tool to get to the truth.”

Put ten people in a situation and how many different versions of the same incident will you get? Studies have shown that while valued as some of the most important of evidence, it is often the worst… and yet, polygraph examinations, when consistently performed by a professional can be accurate 95% of the time. Circuit courts have declared that “Polygraphs are NOT unreliable and can be validly used to monitor the post-release supervision of an offender. ”¹

The Eye Witnesses were JUST Wrong!

Of the 289 Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations of single perpetrator crimes in the U.S., 216 innocent people went to prison due mistaken eye witness accounts, making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. In other words, in these exonerations, 75% of the exonerations involved eyewitness misidentifications. At least 40% of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification. Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own.²  Of the first 130 exonerations effected by DNA, 100 out of 130 of the convictions were eye witness misidentifications.((<a target=”_blank” href=”http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/The_Justice%20Project_Eyewitness_Identification_%20A_Policy_Review.pdf”>http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/The_Justice%20Project_Eyewitness_Identification_%20A_Policy_Review.pdf </a> ))

From “Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review”

“Experiments have been conducted in which witnesses were shown a staged crime and asked to identify the culprit from a lineup. The lineup they were shown, however, did not contain the culprit. After the witnesses unknowingly made false identifications, they were then asked their level of confidence. Before doing so, however, some of the witnesses were given various types of reinforcing feedback. Those witnesses who received some confirmation of their false identification, whether the information that a co-witness identified the same individual or some other confirming feedback, were far more confident in their identifications than other witnesses who were given no feedback — despite having given false identifications. These witnesses also distorted and exaggerated certain details, such as how good their view was, how much of an opportunity they had to view the culprit, etc.”³

Eye Witness misidentification is so rampant that in November 2002, Justice I. Beverly Lake created the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission to study and recommend potential strategies for lessening the incidence of wrongful convictions.

Summary

While clearly, eye witnesses reporting seems to vary from witness to witness and can be inaccurate, polygraph maintains a consistent accuracy and growing acceptance. Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, reversed a ruling that polygraph evidence is per se inadmissible. Citing advances in the reliability of polygraph techniques, they would allow polygraph evidence in certain circumstances.⁴ A divided Louisiana Supreme Court allows polygraph evidence in police disciplinary hearings. And in this case, U. S. Supreme Court declined to review it.⁵

1. U.S. v. Johnson, 446 F.2d 272 (2nd Cir. 2006).
2. <a target=”_blank” href=”http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php”>http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php </a>
3. <a target=”_blank” href=”http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/The_Justice%20Project_Eyewitness_Identification_%20A_Policy_Review.pdf”>http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/The_Justice%20Project_Eyewitness_Identification_%20A_Policy_Review.pdf </a>
4. U.S. v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
5. Evans v. DeRidder Mun. Fire and Police Civ. Serv. Bd., #01-C-2466, 815 So.2d 61, 2002 La. Lexis 962; cert. den., 2003 U.S. Lexis 636 (2003). [2003 FP Mar]

Do criminals have more rights than public officials, civil servants or federal and public employees? Yes.

The reason is that government realizes that polygraph examinations, done correctly, have about a 95% accuracy rating and their is a very good chance that if a professional polygraph examiner indicates dishonesty in the results of the polygraph test, it is very likely that something is amiss. And for government to work, the people it represents have to have faith in the integrity of the individuals that make up the system. So yes, civil, public and Federal employees do have to live to a higher standard and have less rights (at times) than John Doe. While precedents can be found on either side of an argument, here are a few legal references to the mandatory use of polygraph in public employment.

• FEDERAL - Federal appeals court upholds termination of public employees who refused to take a polygraph test.¹
• OHIO - Use of the device was job-related because it “allowed the city to make a more informed choice about its hiring decisions; there was uncontradicted testimony at trial the polygraph “intimidated many applicants to reveal further information about their background.” ²
• PENNSYLVANIA - Federal appeals court rules that use of polygraph test in pre-employment screening did not violate the equal protection clause or violate an applicant’s substantive due process rights.³
• GEORGIA - Federal Appeals Court upholds exam and control questions asked firefighters in drug investigation.⁴
• FEDERAL - President Reagan adopts polygraph directive for federal employees with access to classified information.⁵
• TENNESSEE - Federal appeals court upholds polygraph as precondition for promotional opportunity.⁶
• ARIZONA - Alleged misuse of city time adequate basis to order polygraph.⁷
• ILLINOIS - Accused public employee must reply as to whether he has taken a polygraph examination; refusal to answer is insubordination.⁸

---

If you would like to discuss the professional services of a polygraph examiner, please contact The Polygraph Examiner at 1-800-497-9305.

1. Gulden v. McCorkle, 680 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1982). [83 FP#101 12]
2. Tye v. City of Cincinnati, 794 F.Supp. 824 (S.D. Ohio 1992). [1993 FP 27-8]
3. Anderson v. City of Philadelphia, 845 F.2d 1216 (3rd Cir. 1988).
4. Hester v. Milledgeville, 777 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985).
5. National Security Decision, Directive #84 (1983).
6. Brown v. State of Tennessee, 693 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1982).
7. Rivera v. City of Douglas, 644 P.2d 271 (Ariz. App. 1982).
8. Nieukirk v. Board of Fire & Police Cmsnrs. of Peoria, 423 N.E.2d 1259 (Ill.App. 1981).

State statutes vary regarding the admissibility of polygraph information as evidence in a court of law. These concerns tend to fall into the following categories:

1. The lack of agreement about whether polygraph examinations are scientifically valid;
2. The lack of a definitive error rate;
3. The lack of controlling standards of practice in the polygraph profession; and
4. Questions about juries giving polygraph findings excessive weight in the decision- making process and weakening their role as determiners of truth.

Scientifically Valid & Accurate

The American Polygraph Association’s web site documents 2,174 field examinations with an average accuracy of 98%.  You can read more about this at http://thepolygraphexaminer.com/blog/polygraph-exam-accuracy/

Examination Standards

As with any industry, it is unavoidable and unfortunate that there are entities that don’t adhere to professional standards. A way to avoid this is to only utilize polygraph examiners that are certified and adhere to the APA standards. The American Polygraph Association By-Laws require that all conclusions and opinions be based on a quantitative or numerical scoring
system for all evidentiary examinations.  They have also published standards of practice for examiners conducting examinations, and these standards are intended to limit variation in practice across examiners.

Juries & Findings

The last concern with polygraph examination admissibility is the fact that juries or courts will give TOO MUCH weight to results obtained from a polygraph test, either positive or negative. While accurate, polygraphs are tools to uncover an underlying baseline truth. They are just one more piece of the puzzle. The mere fact of someone agreeing to take a polygraph often speaks volumes. Many times, the polygraph is used as a pre-trial tool to avoid court altogether. It is up to the attorneys involved to put the polygraph findings and it usage in the proper perspective for the court.

Opening Doors

The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. case, mentioned in the first paragraph,  creates a possibility for the admissibility of polygraph data. It would allow district courts the authority to determine if evidence is relevant and reliable.

A good example, in appeal of the Kansas v. Lumley² case, the defendant appealed a prison sentence that resulted from his untruthful answer to a polygraph question, the judge found that polygraph reliability was sufficiently robust to be acceptable. This would apply to a parole or probation revocation hearing that requires a lesser standard of proof than a finding of guilt. Further, the judge indicated that without the polygraph examinations and the admission of the results as a condition of probation, the sex offender  supervision program could not be maintained.

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [509 U.S. 579, 1993]
2. WL 218704, 1999

The word “polygraph” literally means “many writings”¹.  This alludes to the various types of responses simultaneously monitored and recorded during the examination. The polygraph machine will collect physiological data from various autonomic systems in the examinee’s body and record them on either paper (analog) charts or computer systems (digital). This may involve placing rubber tubes around their chest or abdominal area to record respiratory activity (pneumograph). Small sensors may be attached to the fingers to record electrodermal activity. A blood pressure cuff or something similar may be used to record cardiovascular activity (heart rate and blood pressure), also referred to as a cardiograph.

The machine does NOT uncover lies.

The machine only records biological reactions and the examiner uses one of a variety of numeric scoring methods to evaluate the data and  evaluates the truthfulness of the person taking the exam. The American Polygraph Association By-Laws requires that all conclusions and opinions be based on a quantitative or numerical scoring system for all evidentiary examinations.

Accuracy

Most arguments for the admissibility of polygraph results to be used in court revolve around the accuracy of polygraph exams. The American Polygraph Association (APA) points out that the critics of polygraph tend to use any results that an examiner may deem as “inconclusive” as “errors”. The APA considers inconclusive data as just that, neutral, neither indicative of lying or truthfulness. For example, if a polygraph examiner gives 10 tests and finds 7 results to be “untruthful”, 1 “truthful”, and 2 “inconclusive”. One of the ‘untruthfuls’ is a false positive. Critics would find that not an margin of error of 10% but include the 2 ‘inconclusives’  for an error rate of 30%. In reality, the error rate is 10% and 2 findings were found to be indistinct enough as to not be conclusive one way or the other.

The American Polygraph Association‘s web site documents 11 studies of 1,609 field examinations with an average accuracy rate of 92% and 2,174 field examinations with an average accuracy of 98%.

Polygraph reliability and validity reviews of field studies² conducted by Forensic Research, Inc., of Severna Park, Maryland, indicate that between 96 and 98 percent of exams correctly identified deception.³

Professional Standards

Key to polygraph research is that a number of variables can affect the accuracy of polygraph examinations. When looking for a professional polygraphist, make sure that…

• The polygraph examiner uses an accepted testing procedure and scoring system⁴.
• The polygraph examiner follows established practices to maximize accuracy and reliability. The American Polygraph Association has published standards of practice for examiners intended to limit variation in practice across examiners⁵.
• The polygraph examiner is accredited and certified by the American Polygraph Association.

1. American Polygraph Association; Gannon, Beech, & Ward, 2008
2. http://dpca.state.ny.us/pdfs/sopolygraphresearchbulletin3.pdf
3. For more information on concerns about polygraph accuracy and the quality of polygraph research, see Lykken’s Tremor in the Blood
   
4. Ansley, 1997
5. Dutton, 2000

• self-incrimination
• invasion of privacy
• questions about the accuracy and reliability of polygraphs
• and the admissibility of polygraph evidence in court.

Self Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against compelled or forced self-incrimination. This becomes an issue as the key to polygraph/management treatment is the expectation that the offender will provide full disclosure about his past and current sexual offenses. The issue of self-incrimination comes into play because an offender who discloses prior (or current) victims during a polygraph examination may be risking further prosecution or revocation. In a Minnesota case¹, that while statements cannot be compelled, the court found no Fifth Amendment violation in questioning sex offenders on probation.

Prior Crimes Limited Immunity

One option is for prosecutors to offer limited, or even full, immunity  for post-conviction offenders from prosecution for prior crimes discovered during their polygraph treatment. Typically these limitations are for specific or similar crimes and are in effect only as long as the offender complies with treatment and supervision conditions and does not reoffend.² Immunity does not cover any new crimes committed while the offender is under probation or parole supervision. Many prosecutors are reluctant to go on record as supporting limited immunity agreements.

Privacy Concerns

Do convicted sex offenders have the same rights other citizens? No. Sex offenders are required to waive confidentiality. Treatment and conditions of probation or parole usually include the expectation for an offender’s full disclosure of his or her sexual history, at-risk behaviors, and new crime information.

Plus, the role that secrecy and lies are so critical to modus operandi of sex offenders that most offender management professionals believe that it is not only NOT unethical, but therapeutic, to encourage sex offenders to give up all secrets related to sexual deviance.

1. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 1983
2. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199673.pdf

Most sexual offenders live in a world of lies. They spend their lives getting deceiving people into believing they are “normal”. Only a tiny minority of containment professionals (psychologists, parole officers, police, etc.) believe that sex offenders will suddenly begin telling the truth when they are placed under correctional supervision¹.

Benefits of Polygraph Exams in Post Conviction Sex Offender Cases

• Risk predictability – Polygraphs enable containment managers to detect predictive risk indicators

  • Good containment reveals bad behaviors, and that’s the path toward public safety. - Kim English Research Director, Colorado Department of Public Safety

    High-Risk Behaviors – Such as use of pornography, masturbating to deviant fantasies, obscene phone calls or internet activity, stalking, bestiality, and giving alcohol/drugs to a potential victim were reported.

  • Deviant sexual arousal, indicated by phallometric measures of sexual preference, was found to predict new sex crime convictions in both rapists² and child molesters.
  • Accurate prior sexual offending history ((Hall, 1995; Hansen et al., 1992; Marshall and Barbaree, 1988; Rice et al., 1991; Rice and Harris, 1997)) remains one of the strongest predictors of subsequent sex crime arrests and convictions.
• Identifying possible victim profiles – Data from polygraph testing revealed that the proportion offenses against adult women tripled to 39%. Lie detection data also discovered that in reality: the proportion of offenders with girl victims ages 6 to 9 more than tripled, from 20% to 64% and that 21% of incest offenders crossover between Types of Victims (to non-family). Besides the cumulative data, polygraph exams can help determine if others near the offender may be at risk, such as neighbor children or family members.
• Curative Tool – Additionally, polygraph results can assist the treatment in teaching offenders how to live without abuse and secrecy. In the case of Patton v. State³ found “…the rehabilitative benefits of the polygraph examination condition must be obtained without the examination results being admissible in any subsequent court proceeding”⁴.
• Post-conviction treatment process – As an example, a parole board member or case worker can determine whether, after serving his prison sentence, an offender who victimized adult females should be allowed to live with young children.
• Identifying new crimes – one study showed 14% of sex offenders who received polygraph examinations across the 3 states reported sexually abusing victims while under community supervision through the treatment/polygraph process.⁵
• Crime Prevention – 56.1 % of the probation and parole officers interviewed increased surveillance when violations of supervision were disclosed during a polygraph exam.⁶ Furthermore,  63% of the treated offenders interviewed reported that, in anticipation of a polygraph examination, that it helped them avoid risky behavior:

The end result is a management/treatment process that not only helps the curative process, but enables managers to better monitor offenders for both prevention and apprehension.

To be continued…  Legalities & Ethical Concerns

1. English, Pullen, and Jones, 1996
2. Rice, Harris, and Quinsey, 1990
3. 580 NE.2d 693, Ind. App. 1992
4. Polygraph 29, 121:2000
5. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199673.pdf
6. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199673.pdf

Attorneys

By using independent polygraph examiners, attorneys “can help prove innocent people erroneously accused of offenses that, by their nature, seldom produce forensic evidence.” This dual polygraph examiner (exclusion based) technique is an affordable and practical approach to reducing the frequency of abuses and false allegations, before they get to court. Polygraph’s are very effective in “he said/she said” cases where one of a pair of opposed witnesses is almost certainly lying.

Assisting The Courts & Attorneys

In spousal abuse and domestic violence cases, certified lie detection can benefit attorneys and the court system by:

• Reducing the number of groundless accusations. – An attorney’s offer of paired polygraph testing can supply a judge with early insight into the merits of the parties’ cases, whether the test is actually conducted or not, thus using the offer of polygraph as a tool to validate the veracity of your claim the courts.
• Reducing the incidence of meritorious suits stymied by perjury-dependent defenses. Your case may be valid but polygraph tests can help you prevent a witness from perjuring themselves and jeopardizing a case.
• Reducing the incidence of tried cases that are decided incorrectly due to perjured testimony. By discouraging many groundless lawsuits and frivolous defenses altogether, paired polygraph testing enables attorneys to negotiate a fast resolution, significantly reducing the courts’ caseloads.

To learn more about lie detection testing and scientific polygraph examinations, contact The Polygraph Examiner at (800) 497-9305 or andrew@thepolygraphexaminer.com