Should we submit to a polygraph

bachus

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 19, 1999
Messages
704
Location
Frederick, MD USA
I live in Maryland.
Last October about $3,000 worth of rented sound equipment was stolen from a club in Pennsylvania. At the time, my wife, son, and I had access to the premises as we had just concluded running weekly parties there. Several other people had key access, plus there were several people in the town who knew how to get in without a key. We didn't take the stuff. Several of the others with possible access were known to be somewhat sketchy characters.
The police called yesterday and asked us to submit, volutarily, to a polygraph 'so they can eliminate us from their list of suspects'. They said they weren't polygraphing any of the 'sketchy' suspects because they couldn't find them. I seriously doubt that the police have any good evidence against anyone so are looking to the polygraph as an interrogation tool to try and get a confession out of someone.
My concern is that polygraphy is perfectly capable of falsely identifying a person as untruthful. Polygraph proponents rate this probability somewhere in the 3-7 percent range. Polygraph opponents claim it's more like 50% Moreover, the more inherently honest a person is, the more likely they are to generate a 'false positive'. My wife, bless her, is righteous to a fault and also very easily un-nerved.
So, if my family submits to the test, there is a distinct possibility (at least 1 in 5) that one of us will be incorrectly judged to be 'untruthful'. That's worse odds than Russian Roulette!
I don't mind helping the cops. But they've only given us the briefest of telephone interviews to date and haven't even spoken to my son. The owner of the equipment was a good business friend and we'd be happy to see the thief caught or the equipment returned (though after 5 months that seems unlikely). But I don't want to help the cops make a stupid conclusion that my family or I are responsible.
Just about all the anti-polygraph websites say that if you're being investigated for an offence and are innocent, you should decline a polygraph. But this might be taken by the cop as an indication of guilt.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
So should we decline or agree?
If we decline, What are the possible consequences?Can the cop take that to a judge as cause for a search warrant? What if the cop's from another state?
Is it time to start spening money on a criminal defense lawyer? Do I need one licensed in MD, PA, or both?
Please. We're losing a lot of sleep over this.
Bachus
 
Don't take the test. You never get cooperation points with the police. I don't even know why they would want to test you since it would inadmissable in court anyway. And they won't be able to get a warrant on a simple refusal. (They might have other evidence to obtain it, though)
Also, polygraphs mostly work through the anxiety they cause. Most people feel pressured to confess and do so. So as long as you do not confess anything- you should be fine on the test.
 
Yeah..they really aren't admissible and I'm not even sure why they bother to use them. They do ask basic questions at first to try to establish some sort of baseline, so a really nervous person would show up as nervous even on the normal questions (theorhetically).
I'm agreed with Ed. Since you did not do it, don't worry about "how it looks" to the police. You are within every right to refuse, although I'd do it politely.
On a side note:
Actually, contrary to some beliefs, a guilty person would not be able to fake innocence by maintaining calm as much as they would by forcing themselves to be more aroused (biting tounge, digging nails into palm) for the normal questions. Just an interesting little tidbit. :)
 
IMO, if you are going to take the polygraph, always assert your fifth ammendmente right not to incriminate yourself when asked questions that pertain directly to you or your wife. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself or your wife. This does not, however pertain to your son. My advice, don't take the test. But if you do, ask to have a lawyer present in the room if you can. It's always a good idea to have your lawyer in the room.
 
PA police must have a lot of free time, a polygraph over a $3000 theft?
I wouldn't advice taking it, the results are sketchy at best. False positives are not at all uncommon, polygraph is really little more than a coersive investigation tool used to extract confessions. Don't fall for the cops "Well if you've got nothing to hide..." line, cops are sneaky and are alway's looking to trip you up.
I don't think you need to hire a lawyer yet (if you do, get a PA lawyer).
 
An update:
We politely declined the polygraph. Offered to come in for interviews instead and this was accepted.
Interview was non-confrontational and non-Miranda'd. Cop said that Mirandizing is SOP for polygraph.
This is a felony theft in PA,snce the loss was greater than $2,000. Perhaps that's why they're going to this trouble.
Or maybe they've got too little to do. This is the town that was searching for Bigfoot last month after all.
Bachus
 
Originally posted by DrGonzoESQ:
PA police must have a lot of free time, a polygraph over a $3000 theft?

Indiana city cops wanted to polygraph me over a $1500 suspected theft (about $1000 in cash and $500 in checks), after I made a deposit on behalf of my employer and the bank claimed they never received it.
On the advice of my attorney (and after being given some tips), I consented to a telephone interview. I then got called back by the detective and was asked to submit to a polygraph. I said I'd talk to my attorney and get back with him. When I called the detective, I just got his voice mail, and so I left a message politely declining the polygraph due to concerns about its reliability, but I offered to assist in any other way I could.
I never heard another word from the police until two months later, when the bank had the night depository disassembled and found the deposit bag jammed inside.
(Disclaimer: While I am licensed to practice law in Indiana, this post is for discussion purposes only, is not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship.)
[ 09 November 2002: Message edited by: matt1978 ]
 
Top