
Frequently Asked Questions
How many questions can be
asked? Specific Issue or Single Issue Examinations limit tests to two to
three relevant questions. Mr. Millwee
works with counsel and the subject to ask the most relevant questions relating
to the issue.
How long does it take? Forensic polygraph examinations
generally take between two to four hours, depending on the complexity of the
issue and the needs of counsel.
How much will the polygraph examination
cost? Generally,
the examination will cost $500. Payment
must be made in advance, which can be done securely online or by sending
payment directly to SecurTest. Checks
from law firms and approved corporate and government clients is acceptable,
otherwise certified checks are required when paying by telephone. We have a 24-hour cancellation notice
requirement once the polygraph appointment is made.
Are there any hidden costs for fees or expenses? No. Mr. Millwee provides a
detailed agreement that covers all costs and expenses that is signed by the
client, the subject of the examination, where applicable, and Mr. Millwee.
Do you accept Credit Cards? Yes. We accept all major credit
cards.
Can you test after
normal business hours? Yes. Mr. Millwee attempts to
schedule polygraphs according to the needs of all clients. Many examinations are administered at the
offices of the attorney, prosecutor, jail, prison, or other locations. Hourly rates apply.
Will you travel to me for the test? Yes. Mr. Millwee often
administers the examination away from his office as indicated in the previous
question. Arrangements can also be made
to use meeting rooms in hotels across the country. Hourly rates apply.
Can I call for a free consult? Yes. Mr. Millwee prefers initial
consultations to insure that the polygraph is indicated for the issue in
question.
Can an employee be
given a polygraph? Yes. However, the federal Employee Polygraph
Protection Act of 1988 governs employers’ use of the polygraph. Mr. Millwee will assist the employer in
meeting the criteria. Employees can
always voluntarily take a polygraph.
More information can be found at http://www.polygraph.org/eppa.
How accurate is the polygraph? Polygraphs are the most effective
tool in helping determine fact from fiction. Polygraph research shows that actual
examinations that were later independently verified by confessions and forensic
evidence proved to be accurate between 90 to 95%.
Can the subject
'beat' the test? Computerized
polygraph technological advances used by Mr. Millwee shows attempts by subjects
to use countermeasures. The only reason
for a person to attempt to defeat the polygraph is deception.
Should I stop taking my medication before the polygraph? No. Never stop prescribed medications except by
orders of your physicians. Discuss with
Mr. Millwee medications and your medical history, as he will determine if you
should not take a polygraph.
Will it hurt to take a polygraph?
No, it is
not physically painful. The polygraph
instrument attachments are non-intrusive and lightweight.
Will you ask personally embarrassing questions?
No. All questions are reviewed
with you before the exam. Only questions
directly applicable to the resolution of the relevant issues and proper control
questions are asked. No questions involving your race, gender, religion, sexual
orientation or preference, political opinions, cultural values, or other issues
that are deliberately designed to embarrass or demean you will be asked.
Will my being nervous cause me to “fail” the polygraph?
No. Everyone is nervous taking a
polygraph. You will be given specific
instructions and Mr. Millwee’s style is instructive and calming. Follow his instructions and simply tell the
truth.
How will the results be reported? The
agreement between the person or organization ordering the polygraph determines
who is to receive the results. No other
parties, except where required by law, will receive the results. Mr. Millwee discusses his findings with the
subject of the examination. A written
report, if requested in the agreement, is generally issued with one business
day.
Are there quality control procedures to insure accuracy?
Yes. You may request Mr. Millwee
send your polygraph charts, his notes and report to another expert examiner for
evaluation. Mr. Millwee can provide a
list of independent experts or you may find another. You may be responsible for the second opinion
or analysis fees, if any.
How do I schedule a polygraph? Call
Mr. Millwee to discuss the matter with you.
He will discuss your needs to insure that the polygraph or some other
forensic or expert method best suited to the situation.
Should I do anything in preparation for the polygraph?
No. Get a good night’s rest
before the polygraph. Arrive on
time. Cooperate and tell the truth. Dress comfortably as you may be sitting for
several hours with appropriate breaks.
You can always stop the test for a break, or all together.
The American Polygraph Association
provides additional information, as follows:
The term
"polygraph" literally means "many writings." The name
refers to the manner in which selected physiological activities are
simultaneously recorded. Polygraph examiners may use conventional instruments,
sometimes referred to as analog instruments, or computerized polygraph
instruments. It is important to understand what a polygraph examination
entails. A polygraph instrument will collect physiological data from at least
three systems in the human body. Convoluted rubber tubes that are placed over
the examinee's chest and abdominal area will record respiratory activity.
Two small
metal plates, attached to the fingers, will record sweat gland activity, and a
blood pressure cuff, or similar device will record cardiovascular activity. A
typical polygraph examination will include a period referred to as a pre-test,
a chart collection phase and a test data analysis phase. In the pre-test, the
polygraph examiner will complete required paperwork and talk with the examinee
about the test. During this period, the examiner will discuss the questions to
be asked and familiarize the examinee with the testing procedure.
During the
chart collection phase, the examiner will administer and collect a number of
polygraph charts. Following this, the examiner will analyze the charts and
render an opinion as to the truthfulness of the person taking the test. The
examiner, when appropriate, will offer the examinee an opportunity to explain
physiological responses in relation to one or more questions asked during the
test. It is important to note that a polygraph does not include the analysis of
physiology associated with the voice. Instruments that claim to record voice
stress are not polygraphs and have not been shown to have scientific support.
The three
segments of society that use the polygraph include law enforcement agencies,
the legal community, and the private sector. They are further described as follows:
·
Law Enforcement
Agencies - Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, State Law Enforcement Agencies,
and Local Law Enforcement Agencies such as Police and Sheriff's Departments.
·
Legal Community -
U.S. Attorney Offices, District Attorney Offices, Public Defender Offices,
Defense Attorneys, Parole & Probation Departments.
·
Private Sector -
Companies and Corporations under the restrictions and limitations of the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA).
·
Private citizens
in matters not involving the legal or criminal justice system.
·
Attorneys in civil
litigation.
See our
comprehensive page on this subject by clicking here.
One of the problems in discussing accuracy
figures and the differences between the statistics quoted by proponents and
opponents of the polygraph technique is the way that the figures are
calculated. At the risk of over simplification, critics, who often don't
understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive test results as errors. In
the real life setting an inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is
unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a second examination is
usually conducted at a later date.
To illustrate how the inclusion of
inconclusive test results can distort accuracy figures, consider the following
example: If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is
correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we
calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were
correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate
in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.) Since those
who use polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test results as
negative, and do not hold them against the examinee, to consider them as errors
is clearly misleading and certainly skews the figures.
Preemployment Test Accuracy To date,
there has been only a limited number of research projects on the accuracy of
polygraph testing in the pre-employment context, primarily because of the
difficulty in establishing ground truth. However, since the same physiological
measures are recorded and the same basic psychological principles may apply in
both the specific issue and pre-employment examinations, there in no reason to
believe that there is a substantial decrease in the accuracy rate for the
preemployment circumstance. The few studies that have been conducted on
pre-employment testing support this contention.
While the polygraph technique is not
infallible, research clearly indicates that when administered by a competent
examiner, the polygraph test is one of the most accurate means available to
determine truth and deception.
For an excellent review of the research
involving validity and reliability, including preemployment screening, see: The
Accuracy and Utility; of Polygraph Testing. (1984) Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Defense, 1984. Complete reprints may be purchased from the APA
National Office.
Polygraph Screening in Police Agencies - The
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) prohibits most private
employers from using polygraph testing to screen applicants for employment. It
does not affect public employers such as police agencies or other governmental
institutions. In the testimony regarding EPPA it became clear that there were
no current and reliable data on a variety of important issues about police
applicant screening, although polygraph testing had reportedly been used for
that purpose since at least the early 1950's. In recognition of this gap, the
APA Research Center at Michigan State University embarked on a survey of police
executives in the U.S. to determine the extent of, and conditions in which,
polygraph testing is being used for pre-employment screening The survey
population included 699 of the largest police agencies in the United States,
excluding federal agencies, and produced usable returns from 626 agencies, a
response rate of 90%. The major results of the survey showed the following:
Among the respondents, 62% had an active
polygraph screening program, 31% did not and 7% had discontinued polygraph
screening, usually because of prohibitive legislation. These results make it
clear that a great majority of our largest police agencies do have a polygraph
screening program in effect. These agencies employ, on average, 447 officers
and service a population averaging 522,000 citizens. They primarily use the
polygraph to screen applicants for sworn positions, although 54% also screen
persons interested in non-sworn positions. Approximately 25% of the persons
tested are disqualified from police employment based on the information
developed during polygraph testing which, by the way, is used both to verify
information provided in an application form and to develop information that
cannot be gotten by other means. Only a very small proportion (2%) of agencies
use polygraph testing as a substitute for a background investigation. A rank
ordered listing of topics covered during polygraph testing revealed that
investigation of illegal drug usage, employment related dishonesty, and
involvement in felonies are the most important.
When asked to indicate what their reasons
were for using polygraph screening, the great majority of the agencies
indicated that it reveals information that cannot be obtained by other
selection methods. Closely following this item in order, was that polygraph
testing makes it easier to establish background information, that it deters
undesirable applicants, and that it is faster than other methods of selection.
The three leading benefits of polygraph screening were that applications were
more honestly completed; that higher quality employees were hired; and that
there were fewer undesirable employees. Over 90% of these agencies expressed
either moderate or high confidence in their polygraph screening program and 80%
of them reported that in their experience the accuracy of the testing ranged between
86%-100%. The only procedure that was considered to be as useful as polygraph
screening was a background investigation; all others, including written
psychological tests, psychological or psychiatric interviews, personal
interviews, and interviews by a selection board were judged to be less useful.
Finally, this survey also showed that polygraph screening revealed applicant's
involvement in serious, undetected criminality. For example, 9% of the agencies
said that polygraph screening detected involvement by some applicants in
unsolved homicides; 34% indicated some applicant involvement in forcible rape;
and 38% showed some applicant participation in armed robberies. Other serious,
unsolved crimes, such as burglary, arson and drug offenses were also revealed
by polygraph screening.
False
positive, False negative - While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it
is not infallible and errors do occur. Polygraph errors may be caused by the
examiner's failure to properly prepare the examinee for the examination, or by
a misreading of the physiological data on the polygraph charts. Errors are
usually referred to as either false positives or false negatives. A false
positive occurs when a truthful examinee is reported as being deceptive; a
false negative when a deceptive examinee is reported as truthful. Some research
indicates that false negatives occur more frequently than false positives,
other research studies show the opposite conclusion. Since it is recognized
that any error is damaging, examiners utilize a variety of procedures to
identify the presence of factors which may cause false responses, and to insure
an unbiased review of the polygraph records; these include:
Protective Procedures
·
an assessment of
the examinee's emotional state
·
medical
information about the examinee's physical condition
·
specialized tests
to identify the overly responsive examinee and to calm the overly nervous
·
control questions
to evaluate the examinee's response capabilities
·
factual analysis
of the case information
·
a pre-test
interview and detailed review of the questions
·
quality control
reviews
Examinee's Remedies - If a
polygraph examinee believes that an error has been made, there are several
actions that may be taken including the following:
·
request a second
examination
·
retain an
independent examiner for a second opinion
·
file a complaint
with a state licensing board
·
file a complaint
with the Department of Labor under EPPA
·
file a request for
the assistance of the American Polygraph Association
Prohibitive
Inquiries - Personal and intrusive questions have no
place In a properly conducted polygraph examination. Many state licensing laws,
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, as well as the American Polygraph
Association, has so stated in language similar to the following:
NO EXAMINER SHOULD INQUIRE INTO ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING AREAS DURING PRE-EMPLOYMENT OR PERIODIC EMPLOYMENT EXAMINATIONS:
·
religious beliefs
or affiliations
·
beliefs or
opinions regarding racial matters
·
political beliefs
or affiliations
·
beliefs,
affiliations or lawful activities regarding unions or labor organizations
·
sexual preferences
or activities
In a law enforcement preemployment polygraph
examination, the questions focus on such
job related inquiries as the theft of money or merchandise from previous
employers,
falsification of information on the job applications, the use of illegal drugs
during
working hours and criminal activities. The test questions are limited in the
time span they
cover, and all are reviewed and discussed with the examinee during a pre-test
interview
before any polygraph testing is done. There are no surprise or trick questions.
In a specific issue polygraph examination the
relevant questions focus on the particular act
under investigation.
According to the various state licensing laws
and the American Polygraph Association's Standards and Principles of Practice,
polygraph results can be released only to authorized persons. Generally those
individuals who can receive test results are the examinee, and anyone
specifically designated in writing by the examinee, the person, firm,
corporation or governmental agency which requested the examination, and others
as may be required by due process of law.
Licensing: Currently there are 29
states and 3 counties which have laws requiring licensure or certification for
polygraph examiners. Most laws require formal instruction, an internship
training period and successful completion of a licensing examination. For
example, the following are basic requirements for licensure in one state:
A person is qualified to receive a license as
an examiner:
·
who establishes
that he or she is a person of good moral character; and,
·
who has passed an
examination conducted by the Licensing Committee, or under its supervision. to
determine his or her competency to obtain a license to practice as an examiner
and
·
who has conferred
upon him or her an academic degree, at the baccalaureate level, from an
accredited collect or university; and,
·
who has
satisfactorily completed 6 months of study in the detection of deception, as
prescribed by rule.
Prohibitive Legislation: In addition
to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, to date there are 20 states and the
District of Columbia which have enacted legislation designed to regulate an
employer's use of the polygraph. No state prohibits polygraph testing in all
settings. A typical statute states: No employer may require a prospective or
current employee to take a polygraph examination as a condition of employment
or continued employment.
Most of these states make exceptions for
testing of certain occupational groups. Commonly exempted are law enforcement
agencies and companies that manufacture, distribute or dispense drugs and
controlled substances.
The American Polygraph Association has
consistently supported licensing efforts throughout the country. The APA
encourages efforts to establish proper qualifications for polygraph examiners
and criteria for testing procedures.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
prohibits much, but not all pre-employment polygraph testing. Testing of
employees is permitted to solve an employer's "economic loss." There
are exemptions for guards, armored car personnel and those who handle drugs and
narcotics. EPPA does not affect testing for attorneys or local, state or
federal agencies. See: PL 199 437. Final Rules in the Federal Register, 56
(42). Monday, March 4 1991,29 CRF Part 801.
Polygraph results (or psychophysiological
detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits
and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have
agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a
stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of
polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph
examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States
Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in
federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing,
that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection,
[Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also
held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to
allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields,
103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive
requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702
requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct.
2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did,
but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence,
when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal
Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir.
1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility,
such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph
results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v.
Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the
decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and
federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established
in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when
polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite
[State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of
Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph
examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on
the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate
courts.
Representative case citations are provided for reference:
Georgia:
State v. Chambers, 240 Ga. 76, 239 SE.2d 324 (1977).
Miller v. State, 380 S.E.2d 690 (1989).
Source: American Polygraph
Association
The American
Polygraph Association believes that scientific evidence supports the high
validity of polygraph examinations. Thus, such examinations have great
probative value and utility for various uses in the criminal justice system.
However, a valid examination requires a combination of a properly trained
examiner, a polygraph instrument that records as a minimum cardiovascular,
respiratory, and electrodermal activity, and the proper administration of an
accepted testing procedure and scoring system.
The American
Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the
validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed,
published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts
from examinations.
Researchers
conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174
field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted
11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of
charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an
average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the
accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing
an average accuracy of 80%.
Researchers
conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810
sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of
81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are
identified fully in the References Cited.