Polygraph? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do they polygraph test you for the US Attorney Office if you are trying to be an AUSA? Also do they polygraph for the NY or CA bar? I have nothing to hide. But I am a generally nervous person, and I heard people fail if they are generally nervous.

[Good Guy Gaud]

You'll be fine if you have nothing to hide but your post makes it seem like you have something to hide.

[encore1101]

NY Bar does not polygraph and I'm 99% sure CA bar doesn't either.

[h2go]

CA Bar does not polygraph.

[oshberg28]

You'll be fine if you have nothing to hide but your post makes it seem like you have something to hide.

Not necessarily - nerves can mess with it, speaking from personal experience.

[tyroneslothrop1]

Based on the number of high achieving attorneys who are generally nervous and/or unfathomably awkward I cannot imagine being that way would pose a problem for polygraph purposes.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everybody. And no, I literally don't have anything to hide. I have heard of people failing because they are just nervous. What about USAO?

[Fed_Atty]

I enjoy hijacking threads. I had a couple of cases involving polygraphs and talked to a few experts to learn a bit more how they work. Some interesting points that were relayed to me:

1. It is very difficult to "beat" a polygraph. However, it is relatively common to indicate deception on a polygraph even if you are not actually being dishonest. That is why in many jurisdictions the results are not admissible.

2. Interrogators like to use polygraphs because they will often lie and bully the subject into a confession. For instance, there nothing to prevent the police from telling someone they failed, even if they did not. Further, they like to tell people they "really" failed it or it is clear that they are lying in an attempt to gain leverage.

3. The basic principle of a polygraph is to ask you a series of control questions and gauge your responses. First, they will ask you a very simple question with only one right answer, such as "are the lights on in this room" They will also ask you to deliberately tell a lie, like to say that the number following 4 is 6 or something. Where it gets more interesting is they will ask you a question that everyone will likely lie about, but it is not that big of a lie. Something like "Have you ever, in your life, been less than 100% honest with a close friend." Most people will say No and most likely are lying. If someone answers yes, they will then follow up asking for specifics. Then the question will be rephrased as "With the exception of the event you just told me about, have you every been less than 100% honest with a close friend" Again most people will say No and be lying. Finally, they will ask you the real question, like "Have you ever done illegal drugs" The theory is that you are clearly lying if the needles move more when you answer this question compared to that of the "lesser" lie.

I am sure there is more to it, but pretty interesting stuff.

[TheProsecutor]

there's no polygraph for AUSA employment.

[rpupkin]

As George Costanza advised, "it's not a lie if you believe it." I passed the polygraph for the CA bar by convincing myself that I had not embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from Starbucks.

[ariannacraig]

Hello. Has anyone have any information on Polygraph Testing? Or has anyone taken a Polygraph for a LE job?
will anxiety affect polygraph

[Anonymous User]

Hello. Has anyone have any information on Polygraph Testing? Or has anyone taken a Polygraph for a LE job?
will anxiety affect polygraph

Polygraphs are generally used for top secret clearance investigations within the federal government. To become an AUSA you need only pass a secret level clearance, which is very similar to top secret except the arbitrary nonsense of the polygraph is not employed.

[Prudent_Jurist]

Whatever you do, hide a tac in your shoe and poke yourself during the control questions.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. Has anyone have any information on Polygraph Testing? Or has anyone taken a Polygraph for a LE job?
will anxiety affect polygraph

Polygraphs are generally used for top secret clearance investigations within the federal government. To become an AUSA you need only pass a secret level clearance, which is very similar to top secret except the arbitrary nonsense of the polygraph is not employed.

This isn’t exactly right. AUSAs only have clearances if they’re working on high level stuff that needs clearances-so like 5-10% of them do. The relevant background check is a single scope investigation, so the investigators do the same level of digging as top secret, but then it gets adjudicated within USAO land instead of DOD. If you need a top secret, they pass the completed investigation over to the DOD, where it will then take a matter of days instead of months because the investigation is complete.

So it’s the worst of both worlds. As in depth as top secret, but no actual clearance to take to a different job.

[Anonymous User]

I enjoy hijacking threads. I had a couple of cases involving polygraphs and talked to a few experts to learn a bit more how they work. Some interesting points that were relayed to me:

1. It is very difficult to "beat" a polygraph. However, it is relatively common to indicate deception on a polygraph even if you are not actually being dishonest. That is why in many jurisdictions the results are not admissible.

2. Interrogators like to use polygraphs because they will often lie and bully the subject into a confession. For instance, there nothing to prevent the police from telling someone they failed, even if they did not. Further, they like to tell people they "really" failed it or it is clear that they are lying in an attempt to gain leverage.

3. The basic principle of a polygraph is to ask you a series of control questions and gauge your responses. First, they will ask you a very simple question with only one right answer, such as "are the lights on in this room" They will also ask you to deliberately tell a lie, like to say that the number following 4 is 6 or something. Where it gets more interesting is they will ask you a question that everyone will likely lie about, but it is not that big of a lie. Something like "Have you ever, in your life, been less than 100% honest with a close friend." Most people will say No and most likely are lying. If someone answers yes, they will then follow up asking for specifics. Then the question will be rephrased as "With the exception of the event you just told me about, have you every been less than 100% honest with a close friend" Again most people will say No and be lying. Finally, they will ask you the real question, like "Have you ever done illegal drugs" The theory is that you are clearly lying if the needles move more when you answer this question compared to that of the "lesser" lie.

I am sure there is more to it, but pretty interesting stuff.

Polygraphs are complete pseudoscience and the "experts" who say otherwise have a vested financial interest in doing so. As you seem to understand, the only purpose they serve is as a psychological trick, no different from lying to a suspect that a co-conspirator has already implicated the suspect in the crime.

Saying that they constantly throw out false positives is essentially an admission that they don't work.

[nixy]

I enjoy hijacking threads. I had a couple of cases involving polygraphs and talked to a few experts to learn a bit more how they work. Some interesting points that were relayed to me:

1. It is very difficult to "beat" a polygraph. However, it is relatively common to indicate deception on a polygraph even if you are not actually being dishonest. That is why in many jurisdictions the results are not admissible.

2. Interrogators like to use polygraphs because they will often lie and bully the subject into a confession. For instance, there nothing to prevent the police from telling someone they failed, even if they did not. Further, they like to tell people they "really" failed it or it is clear that they are lying in an attempt to gain leverage.

3. The basic principle of a polygraph is to ask you a series of control questions and gauge your responses. First, they will ask you a very simple question with only one right answer, such as "are the lights on in this room" They will also ask you to deliberately tell a lie, like to say that the number following 4 is 6 or something. Where it gets more interesting is they will ask you a question that everyone will likely lie about, but it is not that big of a lie. Something like "Have you ever, in your life, been less than 100% honest with a close friend." Most people will say No and most likely are lying. If someone answers yes, they will then follow up asking for specifics. Then the question will be rephrased as "With the exception of the event you just told me about, have you every been less than 100% honest with a close friend" Again most people will say No and be lying. Finally, they will ask you the real question, like "Have you ever done illegal drugs" The theory is that you are clearly lying if the needles move more when you answer this question compared to that of the "lesser" lie.

I am sure there is more to it, but pretty interesting stuff.

Polygraphs are complete pseudoscience and the "experts" who say otherwise have a vested financial interest in doing so. As you seem to understand, the only purpose they serve is as a psychological trick, no different from lying to a suspect that a co-conspirator has already implicated the suspect in the crime.

Saying that they constantly throw out false positives is essentially an admission that they don't work.

Pretty sure the person you’re responding to wasn’t saying that they worked.

[Dcc617]

Polygraphs are as accurate as tying rocks to someone’s feet and seeing if they float. Complete nonsense. They’re so bad that they’re not admissible in court, and they admit bite mark evidence in court.

Don’t admit to anything ever, since the real trick for for polygraphs is to make people confess.

Also, don’t be law enforcement, they’re the goons using this bs stuff. Also they’re fascists.

[grayskies]

Hello. Has anyone have any information on Polygraph Testing? Or has anyone taken a Polygraph for a LE job?
will anxiety affect polygraph

Polygraphs are generally used for top secret clearance investigations within the federal government. To become an AUSA you need only pass a secret level clearance, which is very similar to top secret except the arbitrary nonsense of the polygraph is not employed.

Not necessarily. A polygraph is only employed for a TS clearance for an agency-specific or program-specific purpose. A regular TS clearance without any upgrades does not employ a polygraph. Like you said, its largely similar to a secret except the breadth and depth of the background will be deeper (for example, how long back are they looking in your life). Many LE and intel agencies, by nature of their work, will employ a polygraph as part of the clearance process due to their work. Most LE agencies (for sworn positions at least, maybe some support staff too) will employ a full scope/lifestyle polygraph. This covers all aspects of your life - drug use, sexual activity, undiscovered crimes, financial background etc. Other agencies, seemingly more common on the DOD or intel side will use a counterintelligence scope polygraph. These questions focus solely on national security related issues, espionage, and your treatment of classified material, etc.

It is also possible to be granted a TS clearance without a polygraph and then require one later on depending on the program you need access to. There are codes that go along with a TS clearance that correspond with a higher level classification. These are only granted as needed and some might require the use of a full scope or CI-scope poly. So, to bring it back to the poster's original questions. I would think if you were an AUSA assigned to certain division within an office, like national security or cyber, there is probably a chance you would have to submit to either a full scope or CI-scope poly at some point based on the program you need access to in order to work a specific case. But, that is just conjecture based on my knowledge of how the government works. Definitely would not be a blanket requirement though.

[Anonymous User]

Polygraphs are generally used for top secret clearance investigations within the federal government. To become an AUSA you need only pass a secret level clearance, which is very similar to top secret except the arbitrary nonsense of the polygraph is not employed.

This isn’t exactly right. AUSAs only have clearances if they’re working on high level stuff that needs clearances-so like 5-10% of them do. The relevant background check is a single scope investigation, so the investigators do the same level of digging as top secret, but then it gets adjudicated within USAO land instead of DOD. If you need a top secret, they pass the completed investigation over to the DOD, where it will then take a matter of days instead of months because the investigation is complete.

So it’s the worst of both worlds. As in depth as top secret, but no actual clearance to take to a different job.

I posted the first comment above. This is so hypertechnical that no one other than the two of us will care or even understand it, but basically, what you said is what I said. "To become an AUSA you need only pass a secret level clearance..." You're not receiving the clearance, for the reason you have explained. However, you are going through an investigation and being confirmed as a person who could be read in to a clearance if it became necessary.

[Anonymous User]

Not necessarily. A polygraph is only employed for a TS clearance for an agency-specific or program-specific purpose. A regular TS clearance without any upgrades does not employ a polygraph. Like you said, its largely similar to a secret except the breadth and depth of the background will be deeper (for example, how long back are they looking in your life). Many LE and intel agencies, by nature of their work, will employ a polygraph as part of the clearance process due to their work. Most LE agencies (for sworn positions at least, maybe some support staff too) will employ a full scope/lifestyle polygraph. This covers all aspects of your life - drug use, sexual activity, undiscovered crimes, financial background etc. Other agencies, seemingly more common on the DOD or intel side will use a counterintelligence scope polygraph. These questions focus solely on national security related issues, espionage, and your treatment of classified material, etc.

It is also possible to be granted a TS clearance without a polygraph and then require one later on depending on the program you need access to. There are codes that go along with a TS clearance that correspond with a higher level classification. These are only granted as needed and some might require the use of a full scope or CI-scope poly. So, to bring it back to the poster's original questions. I would think if you were an AUSA assigned to certain division within an office, like national security or cyber, there is probably a chance you would have to submit to either a full scope or CI-scope poly at some point based on the program you need access to in order to work a specific case. But, that is just conjecture based on my knowledge of how the government works. Definitely would not be a blanket requirement though.

Accurate and helpful summary.

That said, it doesn't typically apply to someone who's joining the DOJ or a U.S. Attorney's Office for the first time as an AUSA. AUSAs are investigated at the secret level for clearances, only. It is pretty difficult and rare for a new AUSA to quickly get transferred to the national security division or to any division where a real clearance is actually necessary, much less top secret. You can get there eventually if that's where your career interests lie, but it's generally not going to happen when you first join the DOJ.

[Anonymous User]

Polygraphs are as accurate as tying rocks to someone’s feet and seeing if they float. Complete nonsense. They’re so bad that they’re not admissible in court, and they admit bite mark evidence in court.

Don’t admit to anything ever, since the real trick for for polygraphs is to make people confess.

Also, don’t be law enforcement, they’re the goons using this bs stuff. Also they’re fascists.

As an AUSA, I think polygraphs are pretty much bullshit too. The problem is that we don't have better methods to reduce the risk of espionage and betrayal. Read up on the fascinating stories of traitors like Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames to see how difficult it is to figure out who these little bastards are.

As for law enforcement being goons and fascists, you're not really improving the system if you have a healthy skepticism of law enforcement but refuse to consider a career within it. What's the point of criticizing it if you demand that the population of people in charge of it remains exactly the same?

[Dcc617]

Polygraphs are as accurate as tying rocks to someone’s feet and seeing if they float. Complete nonsense. They’re so bad that they’re not admissible in court, and they admit bite mark evidence in court.

Don’t admit to anything ever, since the real trick for for polygraphs is to make people confess.

Also, don’t be law enforcement, they’re the goons using this bs stuff. Also they’re fascists.

As an AUSA, I think polygraphs are pretty much bullshit too. The problem is that we don't have better methods to reduce the risk of espionage and betrayal. Read up on the fascinating stories of traitors like Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames to see how difficult it is to figure out who these little bastards are.

As for law enforcement being goons and fascists, you're not really improving the system if you have a healthy skepticism of law enforcement but refuse to consider a career within it. What's the point of criticizing it if you demand that the population of people in charge of it remains exactly the same?

I would say at least 50% of prosecutors say they joined to change the system from within. However, none of them do. They end up pulling the exact same horrible shit as all the other prosecutors.

A good starting point for understanding this is Chokehold or Let's Get Free, both by Paul Butler. It's definitely on the moderate side of prosecutor criticism. That is largely because Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor who wanted to change the system but realized it was impossible to do as a prosecutor.

[Anonymous User]

I would say at least 50% of prosecutors say they joined to change the system from within. However, none of them do. They end up pulling the exact same horrible shit as all the other prosecutors.

A good starting point for understanding this is Chokehold or Let's Get Free, both by Paul Butler. It's definitely on the moderate side of prosecutor criticism. That is largely because Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor who wanted to change the system but realized it was impossible to do as a prosecutor.

Even a junior AUSA in their very first year as a prosecutor has the power and authority to tell a law enforcement officer that they refuse to indict a case because of insufficient evidence, Fourth Amendment violations, or any other appropriate reasons. You can start acting responsibly and infusing your personal sense of ethics into law enforcement immediately.

This is a human-based system, so I am sorry to see that individual cases, where prosecutors did not do the right thing, still happen. But you keep making sweeping claims. "Don't join law enforcement." Some prosecutors have intentions to do good things but literally "none of them do." I get it that you're not a prosecutor and you want to just rail about law enforcement culture in general. Plenty to rail about. Go ahead. But facts are facts. If you are an ethical and reasonable lawyer, please join us in law enforcement.

[Anonymous User]

I would say at least 50% of prosecutors say they joined to change the system from within. However, none of them do. They end up pulling the exact same horrible shit as all the other prosecutors.

A good starting point for understanding this is Chokehold or Let's Get Free, both by Paul Butler. It's definitely on the moderate side of prosecutor criticism. That is largely because Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor who wanted to change the system but realized it was impossible to do as a prosecutor.

Even a junior AUSA in their very first year as a prosecutor has the power and authority to tell a law enforcement officer that they refuse to indict a case because of insufficient evidence, Fourth Amendment violations, or any other appropriate reasons. You can start acting responsibly and infusing your personal sense of ethics into law enforcement immediately.

This is a human-based system, so I am sorry to see that individual cases, where prosecutors did not do the right thing, still happen. But you keep making sweeping claims. "Don't join law enforcement." Some prosecutors have intentions to do good things but literally "none of them do." I get it that you're not a prosecutor and you want to just rail about law enforcement culture in general. Plenty to rail about. Go ahead. But facts are facts. If you are an ethical and reasonable lawyer, please join us in law enforcement.

I don't mean to sound naive or elevate federal prosecution to any kind of a pedestal, but I think there are two kinds of issues at play: day to day policing on the ground, and broader systems of incarceration. These function really differently at the state level and the federal level.

Butler titled his book (which I haven't read) Chokehold, which comes from the now-notorious police method of physical control. In an interview about the book, he talks about jury nullification in possession and low-level sales cases, and his own experience being arrested for a misdemeanor he didn't commit. These (as well as stop-and-frisk) are issues associated with local police and state-level prosecution. (I'm casting Butler in with local policing because I know he also worked for Main Justice, but the issues he seemed to be focusing on in the interview come out of what would have been state-equivalent guns and drugs prosecutions in the DC USAO.)

I'm not saying federal agents never have issues with excessive force, or with lying on the stand (something else that I think Butler brings up), but I think it's much much less common because the kinds of crimes that the feds prosecute and the way they prosecute them don't depend on the kind of street level police force that tends to benefit from immediate physical violence or require police to lie to try to get a conviction. (And it helps that as an AUSA you work closely with agents building an investigation, you do have the freedom to decline cases you don't think stand up, and you can prep agents extensively before trial, rather than meeting the cop on a case for the first time 45 minutes before trial to prep the state case you got handed after it was done.)

The issue at the federal level is much more about the statutory schemes - like mandatory minimums and the scope of conspiracy charges - and using cooperators/undercover agents, particularly with regard to entrapment kind of schemes.

I'll be honest, I think there are far fewer problems with federal prosecution, but I also recognize that's my subjective opinion, I can't be impartial, and people will disagree. I don't disagree that ultimately both have at least some roots in policing Black men. My point though isn't that the feds are good and locals are bad, it's that by talking about monolithic problems with "prosecution," people talk across each other a lot when different issues require different solutions.

[Anonymous User]

I don't mean to sound naive or elevate federal prosecution to any kind of a pedestal, but I think there are two kinds of issues at play: day to day policing on the ground, and broader systems of incarceration. These function really differently at the state level and the federal level.

Butler titled his book (which I haven't read) Chokehold, which comes from the now-notorious police method of physical control. In an interview about the book, he talks about jury nullification in possession and low-level sales cases, and his own experience being arrested for a misdemeanor he didn't commit. These (as well as stop-and-frisk) are issues associated with local police and state-level prosecution. (I'm casting Butler in with local policing because I know he also worked for Main Justice, but the issues he seemed to be focusing on in the interview come out of what would have been state-equivalent guns and drugs prosecutions in the DC USAO.)

I'm not saying federal agents never have issues with excessive force, or with lying on the stand (something else that I think Butler brings up), but I think it's much much less common because the kinds of crimes that the feds prosecute and the way they prosecute them don't depend on the kind of street level police force that tends to benefit from immediate physical violence or require police to lie to try to get a conviction. (And it helps that as an AUSA you work closely with agents building an investigation, you do have the freedom to decline cases you don't think stand up, and you can prep agents extensively before trial, rather than meeting the cop on a case for the first time 45 minutes before trial to prep the state case you got handed after it was done.)

The issue at the federal level is much more about the statutory schemes - like mandatory minimums and the scope of conspiracy charges - and using cooperators/undercover agents, particularly with regard to entrapment kind of schemes.

I'll be honest, I think there are far fewer problems with federal prosecution, but I also recognize that's my subjective opinion, I can't be impartial, and people will disagree. I don't disagree that ultimately both have at least some roots in policing Black men. My point though isn't that the feds are good and locals are bad, it's that by talking about monolithic problems with "prosecution," people talk across each other a lot when different issues require different solutions.

The AUSA here. None of this is on topic but I find your perspective to be perfectly reasonable and well informed, and interesting.

Before I was an AUSA, I came up through the state system, where I wielded plenty of power over law enforcement. I'd detail more but that would be self-doxing. I will just point out that our 50 states have diverse systems and in some of them, certain prosecutor offices wield even greater influence over cops than AUSAs do over FBI agents etc.

Having said that, you're right in terms of describing the problem. Street policing is where the bulk of the systematic damage toward communities of color and of poverty occur. We employ a system in the United States that heavily promotes police-civilian interactions only in low income areas, for reasons that don't actually make any sense. As someone who has spent plenty of time going after white collar fraud perps who drive Bugattis, I know perfectly well that for every perp committing prostitution crimes downtown there is another perp committing tax fraud, securities fraud, child porn etc. in Beverly Hills. Don't get me started ranting on domestic violence. Yet we choose to employ a heavy police physical presence only downtown? It's time to start questioning these practices and doing something about them.

But with all this agreement let's remember what we're disagreeing about: you or a poster objected to anyone joining our "fascist law enforcement regime" (paraphrasing). I still disagree with this. Professionals with law degrees have tremendous power in the law enforcement community. Not necessarily quite as much as a police chief, but in different respects it's not clear who wields more power. And in terms of the DOJ specifically, don't forget one other important fact about federal power: We can criminally charge bad cops, and that decision to do so carries huge implications at the state and local levels when we make it.