JOURNAL OF THE AME~ICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

Volume 3 December 1974 Number 4

-CONTENTS-

Marijuana-Hashish Epidemic and its Impact on U.S. Security Senator James O. Eastland 355

A Landmark Decision on Polygraph Evidence Thomas G. Beatty 373

The Psychological Basis of Polygraph Technique Stanley Abrams, Ph.D 377

Anger and the Polygraph Technique F. L. Hunter 381

The Polygraph and The Criminal Law: An Overview Philip P . Durand

Polygraph as a Police Pr e-Emp loyment Selection Tool

395

Michael F . Barton 401

U. S. District Court Supports Police Polygraph Screening 412

Index To The Journal of Polygraph Studies NOrman Ansley 417

Reviews and Abstracts 443

Polygraph Review Bobby J . Daily 445

Annual Index 447

Index to Case Citations 458

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

©AM ERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. 1974 P.O. Box 74, Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

MARIHUANA-HASHISH EPIDEMIC AND ITS IMPACT ON UNITED STATES SECURITY

By

Senator James O. Eastland

In a letter dated October 8, Mr. Norman Ansley, editor of Polygraph, the quarterly journal of the American Poly­graph Association, asked for my permission to reproduce my introduction to the hearings on the "Marihuana-Hashish Epi­demic and Its Impact on United States Security." He told me in his letter that every polygraphic practitioner and especially those engaged in research would find the intro­duction and the substance of the hearings of great value in their work. I am honored to give the requested permission.

These hearings, which were held by the Senate Subcom­mittee on Internal Security last May and June, have already had a tremendous impact on public attitudes toward mari­huana, at every level, from Science magazine, to Readers Digest. Science magazine, in fact, devoted two entire articles (August 23 and 30) to the scientific testimony presented at our hearings. (other scientists were also quoted.) Articles and syndicated columns have appeared all over the country. TV Guide had an article a few weeks ago, and Readers Digest will have a major article in its Decem­ber issue. NOC and CBS have both been devoting some time in their programs to a consideration of the adverse scientific evidence on marihuana.

The situation is so serious that, in my op~~on, it calls for the cooperation of informed citizens in every walk of life to get the basic facts about marihuana across to our young peo­ple as well as to the increasing number of adult Americans who are now trying to find some kind of euphoria in this terribly dangerous and destructive drug.

INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARINGS

I consider the hearings which are the subject of this record to be among the most significant ever held by the Senate Internal Security Sub­committee, or, for that matter, by any committee of Congress. The wide­spread interest already generated by the hearings suggest that they may play a role in reversing a trend towards national disaster.

Without pub~c awareness, our country has become caught up in a marihuana-hashish epidemic that probably eclipses, in gravity, the national epidemics that have had so debilitating an effect on the popula­tion of a number of Middle Eastern countries. Speaking about this matter,

lMarihuana and hashish are both derived from the cannabis, or hemp, plant. Marihuana consists of the leaves and female flowers; hashish comes from the resin of the plant. Hashish is roughly 8 to 10 times as strong as marihuana.

355 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Mr. Andrew C. Tartaglino, Deputy Administrator of the DEA, made this statement at the opening hearing on May 9, over which I presided:

The traffic in, and abuse of, marihuana products has taken a more serious turn in the last two or three years than either the courts, the news media, or the public is aware. The shift is clearly toward the abuse of stronger, more dan­gerous forms of the drug which renders much of what has been said in the 1960's about the harmlessness of its use obsolete.

The epidemic began at Berkeley University at the time of the famous 1965 "Berkeley Uprising." Not only was pot-smoking embraced as a symbolic rejection of the establishment, but, together with the "dirty speech move­ment," the right to pot became an integral part of the catalogue of demands of the uprising. From Berkeley, the marihuana epidemic spread rapidly throughout the American campus community. Then it spread down into the high schools and junior high schools--and within the last year or two it has begun to invade the grade schools. It has also spread into the ranks of professional society and of the bluecollar workers, so that all sectors of our society are today affected by the epidemic. Today it is estimated that there are some millions of regular marihuana users in the country, and the evidence indicates that they are graduating rapidly to the stronger hemp drugs, hashish and liquid hashish.

The spread of the epidemic has been faciliated by the fact that most of our media and most of the academicians who have been articulate on the sabject have been disposed to look upon marihuana as a relatively innocuous drug. (How the muth of harmlessness came to be so widely accepted is also part of the subject of this testimony.) There were some who even held that marihuana was a good thing, while most held that there really wasn't too much to worry about.

Taking advantage of the confusion and widespread ignorance, a variety of movements seeking the legalization of marihuana came into existence. They gathered strength rapidly. In fact, by early this year concerned scien­tists and government officials were almost ready to throw in the sponge be­cause the battle looked so hopeless.

This situation, by itself was reason enough for concern. The Internal Security Subcommittee decided to look into it because of internal security considerations affecting the armed forces of the United States, and because of the evidence that clearly subversive groups played a significant role in the spread of the epidemic-both as propagandists and as triffickers. It was established, for example, in previous hearings of the subcommittee, that Timothy Leary's Brotherhood of Eternal Love had for a number of years been the largest producers of LSD and the largest organized smugglers of hashish in the country.

The hearings focused heavily on scientific evidence of physical or psychological harmfulness, because this was basic to any assessment of the impact of cannabis on security.

Important new scientific evidence had emerged within the last few years. But this evidence remained fragmented, sometimes inconclusive, and almost invariably completely unknown to the public. The situation was

356

I

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

further confused by contradictory evidence and by the emergence of several best-selling books suggesting a more tolerant approach to marihuana.

One of the principal reasons why hard scientific evidence has been so slow in emerging is that it is only within recent years--in fact, since 1970--that accepted procedures for the quantitative analysis of marihuana have been established and that carefully standardized strains of marihuana have become available for research purposes. In the absence of standardized research materials and standardized analytical procedures, research scien­tists in the past, working with the utmost conscientiousness, often came up with sharply conflicting findings. Within the last few years, thanks to a remarkable program that has been developed at the University of Mississ­ippi,2 marihuana research is today moving forward without these handicaps --and, as this volume of testimony dramatically demonstrates, this research is producing some highly dramatic results.

In the recent hearings, it was obvious that one of the first things that had to be done was to bring together the bits and pieces of recent research in an organized manner, because only in this way would the total significance of these findings become comprehensible. The subcommittee, therefore, issued invitations to some 20 prominent medical researchers and psychiatrists. Most of them were American, but six other countries were also represented in the panel of scientists. The pro-marihuana cabal could assail a single scientists whose research persuaded him that marihuana was a very dangerous drug: this they could get away with. But abuse and character assassination would no longer be persuasive at the point where it was demonstrated that a large number of top-ranking scientists who had done research on cannabis were convinced that it is a drug with deadly consequences.

With the assistance of several scientists who are internationally known for their research on cannabis and other drugs, the subcommittee staff put together a master list of scientific witnesses who, between them,

2The program is known as the Marihuana Project of the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, which is part of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Mississippi. The program was established in 1968, as part of a national program of research, by Dr. Coy Waller, formerly Vice President in Charge of-Research at Meade-Johnson and consultant to the National In­stitute of Mental Health, who today serves as the Director of the Research Institute. The first Director of the Marihuana Project, from 1968 to 1971, was Dr. Norman Doorenbos. Since 1971, it has been under the direction of Dr. Carlton Turner, who also serves as Associate Director of the Research Institute.

In addition to standardizing the marihuana used for research purposes, Dr. Turner's scientists have developed analytical methods which enable them to give accurate readings on ten different cannabinoids contained in mari­huana samples--a few years ago, they were able to analyze for only three cannabinoid components. The marihuana the Institute cultivates is now used routinely for all research projects sponsored through the National Institute of Mental Health while the United Nations Narcotics Commission has recommended that the analytical procedures developed at the University of Mississippi be used worldwide.

If today we know far more about marihuana than we did two or three years ago, it is thanks in large measure to the pioneering work done at this in­ternationally unique research center.

357

I

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

could cover the newly available scientific evidence in a broad spectrum manner.

Among the eminent scientists who appeared before the Subcommittee were:

Dr. Harvey Powelson: Research Psychiatrist, Berkeley University; Chief of the Psychiatric Division of the Student Health Service at Berkeley from 1964 to 1972.

Dr. Henry Brill: Regional Director of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene; member and/or chairman of drug dependence committees of American Medical Association, National Research Council, the World Health Organization, and the FDA; senior psychiatric member of the Shafer Commission.

Dr. Donald Louria: Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, New Jersey Medical School; Chairman and President, New York State Council on Drug Addiction, 1965 to 1972.

Professor W. D. M. Paton: Head of the department of pharmacology at Oxford University; Chairman of committee overseeing the British Govern­ment's drug research program; author of a standard textbook on pharmacology and widely recognized as one of world's leading pharmacologists.

Professor Morton Stenchever: Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah Medical School.

Dr. Gabriel Nahas: Research Professor at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; simultaneously Visiting Professor at the University of Paris.

Dr. Akira Morishima: Research geneticist; Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Chief of the Division of pediatric endocrine service at Babies Hospital, New York.

Dr. Cecile Leuchtenberger of Switzerland: Head of the Department of Cell Chemistry at the Institute for Experimental Cancer Research in Lausanne; founder and first Director of Cell Chemistry Department at Western Reserve University.

Dr. John A. S. Hall: Senior Physician and Chairman, Department of Medicine, Kingston Hospital, Jamaica, since 1965; Associate Lecturer in Medicine, University of West Indies and visiting Assistant Professor of Neurology at Columbia University.

Dr. Robert Kolodny: Director of the endocrine research section at the Reproductive Biology Research Foundation in St. Louis.

Professor M. I. Soueif: Chairman of the Department of Psychology and Philosophy at Cairo University; member of World Health Organization Panel on Drug Dependence; author of classic study on consequences of hashish ad­diction in Egypt.

358 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Professor Nils Bejerot: Karolinska Institute, Sweden; author of "Addiction and Society" and several other standard texts on the epidemi­ology of drug abuse. Widely recognized as one of foremost international experts in this field.

Dr. Andrew Malcolm: Toronto psychiatrist; member, Drug Advisory Committee, Ontario College of Pharmacy; formerly Senior Psychiatrist, Rockland State Hospital, New York (1955-1958).

Dr. Harold Kolansky: Currently Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; twice President of the Regional Council (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware) of Child Psy­chiatry; Director of Child Psychiatry, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, 1955-1969; Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Albert Einstein Medical Center, 1968-1969.

Dr. William T. Moore: Currently Associate Professor in Clinical Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Associate Pro­fessor of Child Psychiatry at Hahnemann Medical College for 13 years up until 1972; for the past five years Director of Training, Division of Child Analysis, Institute of Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis.

Professor Robert Heath: Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane University Medical School.

Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg: Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia Univer­sity; Chairman of the Drug Dependence Committee of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Dr. Julius Axelrod. Nobel Prize winning research scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health.

Professor Hardin B. Jones: Professor of Physiology and Professor of Medical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley; Assistant Director of the Donner Laboratory of Medical Physics at Berkeley.

Dr. Conrad Schwarz: Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Univ­ersity of British Columbia and Consultant Psychiatrist to the Student Health Service; Chairman of the Drug Habituation Committee of the British Columbia Medical Association.

Dr. Forest S. Tennant, Jr.: Medical Director for several drug abuse programs in the Los Angeles area; officer in charge of the drug abuse program of the U.S. Army Europe, 1971-1972.

THE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS

That our hearings succeeded in achieving their objective has been demonstrated by the dramatic increase of interest, on the part of the scientific community as well as the press, in the new scientific evidence on marihuana. For example, a recent issue of Science magazine (August 23, 1974) points out "the notion that marihuana is harmless has enjoyed a high degree of acceptability with only a minimum of scientific support •••• Since 1969, when the federal government began making marihuana of controlled

359 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

quality available to research scientists, evidence suggesting potential hazards has accumulated at a rapid pace. Those rive years or research have provided strong evidence that, ir corroborated, would suggest that marihuana in its various rorms may be rar more hazardous than was origi­nally suspected." I think it worthy or note that ten or the scientists whose rindings were quoted by the article in Science were among the wit­nesses who testiried in the subcommittee's recent hearings.

The collective testimony or the eminent scientists who came to Washington to testiry may be summarized as rollows:

(1) THe, the principal psycho-active ractor in cannabis, tends to accumulate in the brain and gonads and other ratty tissues in the manner or DDT. This was established beyond challenge by the research or NIMH Nobel Laureate, Dr. Julius Axelrod, and his associates. As a corollary or this, they round that THC persists in the body long after the act or ingestion. In some parts or the body, residual amounts could be round as much as a week arter ingestion.

(2) Marihuana, even when used in moderate amounts, causes massive damage to the entire cellular process:

(a) It reduces DNA and RNA synthesis within the cell, which in turn sharply reduces the mitotic index, or the rate at which the cells give birth to new cells. (Nahas, Morishima, Zimmerman, Leuchtenberger, Paton)

(b) In the case or the T-lymphocytes (the cells involved in the immune process), marihuana use at the three-times-a-week level results in a 41 percent reduction in cell birth. (Nahas and associ­ates)

(c) It results in rar more cells with derective chromosome complements--rrom 38 to 8 chromosomes instead or the normal com­plement or 46. (Morishima) The rindings or rive or the scientists who testiried converged on

the central theme or cellular damage. other research that had been done in this rield was also rererred to. Proressor W. D. M. Paton or Oxrord University, one or the world's leading pharmacologists, summarized this recent research in these terms:

Numerous such errects have now been described, including actions on microsomes, on mitochondria, on neurones, ribroblasts, white blood cells, and on dividing cells, arrecting metabolism, energy utilization, synthesis or cellular constituents, and immunological responses.

On the speciric question or cellular damage, additional evidence is becoming available almost by the week. Since Dr. Nahas testiried, ror example, his rindings on damage to the immune cells have been conrirmed by two nationally prominent medical scientists, Dr. Louis Harris and Dr. Louis Lemberger. other aspects or cellular damage will be covered in several research papers, prepared under orricial auspices, which are shortly to be published.

Needless to say, the conrirmation that marihuana does such serious damage to the entire cellular process opens up an entire spectrum or rrightening possibilities.

360 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

(3) Tied in with its tendency to accumulate in the brain and its capacity for cellular damage, there is a growing body of evidence that marihuana inflicts irreversible damage on the brain, including actual brain atrophy, when used in a chronic manner for several years. Psychia­trists who testified said that they knew of many cases of brilliant young people who went on prolonged cannabis binges, and then tried to go straight -- only to discover that they could no longer perform at the level of which they had been capable. (Heath, Powelson, Kolansky and Moore, Paton) Profes­sor Paton referred to animal experiments which demonstrated that rats ex­posed to marihuana had smaller brains than rats which were not exposed, and to research by Dr. Campbell and associates in England which found brain atrophy in a group of young cannabis smokers comparable to the atrophy that is normally found in people aged 70 to 90. Professor Heath reported that, in experiments with rhesus monkeys exposed to marihuana, highly ab­normal brain wave patterns persisted after the marihuana was withdrawn, suggesting long-term or permanent damage to the brain.

(4) There is also a growing body of evidence that marihuana adversely affects the reproductive process in a number of ways, and that it poses a serious danger of genetic damage and even of genetic mutation. Scientific testimony presented pointed to the following conclusions:

(a) Male hormone (testosterone) level was reduced by 44 per­cent in young males who had used marihuana at least four days a week for a minimum of six months. (Kolodny)

(b) Sperm count was dramatically reduced in the same group of marihuana smokers, falling almost to zero with heavy smokers, so that they had to be considered sterile. (Kolodny) A similar result was found with mice. (Leuchtenberger)

( c) Very heavy smoking in a number of cases resulted in im­potence. Potency was recovered in some of these cases when marihuana was given up. (Kolodny, Hall)

(d) In animal experiments, the spermatids (the precursors of the sperm cells) were found to be abnormal in the sense that they carried reduced amounts of DNA. (Leuchtenberger)

(e) Regular marihuana use, even down to the once a week level, results in roughly three times as many broken chromosomes as are found in non-users. While further research is necessary, this suggests the possibility of genetic abnormalities. (Stenchever)

(f) In a number of animal experiments, marihuana was found to cause a very high rate of fetal deaths and fetal abnormalities, in­cluding runting and lack of limbs--the thalidomide effect. (Paton)

(5) Chronic cannabis smoking can produce sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory difficulties in a year or less, as opposed to ten to twenty years of cigarette smoking to produce comparable complications. (Tennant, Paton, Kolansky and Moore) Professor Paton pointed out that emphysema, which is normally a condition of later life, is now cropping up with increasing frequency in young people, opening up the pros­pect of "a new crop of respiratory cripples" early in life.

(6) Cannabis smoke, or cannabis smoke mixed with cigarette smoke, is far more damaging to lung tissues than tobacco smoke alone. The damage done was described as "pre-cancerous." (Tennant, Leuchtenberger) Although further research is indicated, prelimiary observations suggest that marihuana

361 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

may be a far more potent carcinogen than tobacco.

(7) Chronic cannabis use results in deterioration of mental func­tioning, pathological forms of thinking resembling paranoia, and "a mas­sive and chronic passivit~' and lack of motivation--the so-called "amotivational syndrome." (Powelson, Bejerot, Zeidenberg, Malcolm, Schwarz, Jones, Kolansky and Moore, Hall, Soueif, Tennant)

Describing the zombie-like appearance of chronic cannabis users, Dr. Tennant said: "Major manifestations were apathy, dullness and lethargy, with mild to severe impairment of judgment, concentration and memory ••• physical appearance was stereotyped in that all patients appeared dull, exhibited poor hygiene, and had slightly slowed speech .•• "

Several psychiatrists suggested that the total loss of their own will would make a large population of cannabis users a serious political danger because it makes them susceptible to manipulation by extremists. (Powel­son, Kolansky and Moore, Malcolm)

THE SCX::IAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MARIHUANA EPIDEMIC

The scientific evidence presented to the subcommittee points to an array of frightening social consequences, or possible consequences.

(1) If the cannabis epidemic continues to spread at the rate of the post-Berkeley period, we may find outselves saddled with a large popula­tion of semi-zombies--of young people acutely afflicted by the amotiva­tional syndrome. There is evidence that many of our young people, including high school and junior high school students, are already afflicted by the "amotivational syndrome." The general lack of motivation of the current generation of high school students is a common complaint of teachers. Some of them point out that the growth of this phenomenon in recent years has roughly paralleled the spread of the cannabis epidemic.

(2) We may also find ourselves saddled with a partial generation of young people--people in their teens and early twenties--suffering from irreversible brain damage. Their ability to function may improve if they abandon cannabis, but they will remain partial cripples, unable to fully recover the abilities of their pre-cannabis years.

(3) The millions of junior high school and grade school children who are today using marihuana may produce another partial generation of teen­agers who have never matured, either intellectually or physically, because of hormonal deficiency and a deficiency in cell-production during the critical period of puberty. This fear was expressed in particularly urgent terms by Dr. Paton and Dr. Kolodny. As Dr. Paton put it, we may witness the phenomenon of a generation of young people who have begun to grow old before they have even matured.

(4) There are other frightening possibilities, too. There is the possibility of which Dr. Paton spoke that we may develop a large popula­tion of youthful respiratory cripples. And there is the possibility-­which can only be confirmed by epidemiological studies--that marihuana smokers are producing far more than their quota of malformed or genetically damaged children.

I

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

(5) There is the growing body of evidence that marihuana use leads to indulgence in other drugs.

(6) If the epidemic is not rolled back, our society may be largely taken over by a "marihuana culture"--a. culture motivated by a desire to escape from reality and by a consuming lust for self-gratification, and lacking any higher moral guidance. Such a society could not long endure.

These are some of the reasons why we cannot legalize marihuana, and why society cannot remain indifferent to the epidemic.

THE EPIDEMIC POTENTIAL OF CANNABIS

What makes the prospect even more terrifying is the extraord.;inary epidemic potential of cannabis. It is doubtful that any other drug in common use today has a comparable potential.

I do not underestimate the damage done by the abusive use of alcohol. But the nature of alcohol places certain limitations on its epidemic spread. It is impossible, or at least very difficult, to take a quart of whiskey or a six-pack of beer to one's place of work, or, in the case of a teenager or grade schooler, to take it to school. If one did take it to school or to work, it would be difficult to find the time during the work day or during the school hours to get oneself really intoxicated on alcohol. And if a worker or a student did manage to get himself stoned on alcohol, he would be given away by his drunken stagger or by the smell of alcohol on his breath.

But with marihuana, there are no such limitations. It is cheap enough so that even a fourth or fifth grader can afford to buy a joint or two with his weekly allowance. It is compact enough so that a few joints can easily be concealed on the body. All it requires is a 10 or 15 minute break to get thoroughly stoned. And, apart from a tired and passive look which may suggest that the user is short on sleep, there are no telltale symptoms; the user, though stoned, does not walk with a stagger, nor is there any odor on his breath. A student could sit through an entire day in a cannabis stupor, and learn nothing--a.nd his teacher would be none the wiser.

On top of this, users of marihuana suffer from a much more compelling urge to proselytize and involve others than do users of alcohol. One can attend a cocktail party and drink ginger ale and not be harrassed and pushed by one's cocktail friends to get on the act and drink. At pot parties, the pressures are infinitely greater.

Another factor contributing to the spread of the cannabis epidemic is the tremendous potency of the material available and the ease with which it can be concealed and transported. A pound of "liquid hashish"- a concentrated distillate derived from either marihuana or hashish--would theoretically be enough to intoxicate a city of 15,000 people.

Still another factor is that, with marihuana and hashish, chronic abuse begins at a use level which would be insignificant with alcohol. A person who took a drink of whiskey once a week or even three times a week,

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

would be considered a light drinker; it has yet to be argued that alcohol consumption at this level can do any damage. But a person who smokes marihuana three times a week or more is generally considered a chronic smoker; and there are some scientists who insist that even once a week smoking constitutes chronic use. In support of this contention, they point to the facts that THC persists in the brain for a week or more after smoking, and that some of the research covered in our recent hearings found dramatic changes even at the once a week level (cf. Stenchever on chromosome damage).

Finally, there is the almost unbelievable rate at which-if it is readily available--a cannabis user can escalate from occasional social use to chronic and massive abuse. It generally takes years before a chronic drinker escales to a quart a day. But, according to Dr. Tennant, GI's who arrived in Germany as casual marihuana users, would a month or two later be consuming 50 or 100 grams--and in some cases up to 600 grams --of hashish monthly. Three grams of hashish a day, it should be pointed out, is roughly 12 times the amount required to produce a hashish intoxi­cation.

WHERE THE EPIDEMIC STANDS TODAY

There are conflicting estimates of the number of chronic cannabis users in our country. According to some estimates, there are roughly 20 to 25 million people who have used marihuana in one degree or another, but only one to two million who may be considered regular users. According to the estimate of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marihuana Laws), the total number of Americans who have been exposed to marihuana runs close to thirty-five million, while the number of regular users is past the ten million mark.

Figures on seizures of marihuana and hashish submitted to our hearings by the Drug Enforcement Administration strongly suggest the validity of the higher estimate. According to DEA, federal seizures of marihuana over the past five years have increased tenfold, to a total of 780,000 pounds in 1973, while federal seizures of hashish over the same period of time in­creased twenty-five fold, to a total of almost 54,000 pounds. These figures do not include seizures by state and local law enforcement authorities. Assuming that ten times as much got into the country as was actually seized - a fairly conservative estimate -- this would mean that total consumption of marihuana in 1973 was probably close to ten million pounds, while total consumption of hashish probably exceeded 600,000 pounds. (These estimates make some allowance for non-federal seizures-for which no figures are available.)

These are truly staggering quantities when one understands just how potent marihuana and hashish are and how little is required to become in­toxicated. No one could possibly get intoxicated on an ounce or two ounces of hard liquor. An ounce of hashish with a 10 percent THC content is sufficient for a hundred intoxications; an ounce of marihuana with a 1.5 percent THC content is enough for roughly twelve intoxications. And when it comes to "marihuana oil," or "liquid hashish," as it is sometimes called, the THC content of which can run as high as 60 to 90 percent, we have a substance with an almost lethal potential for mass intoxication.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

One drop of liquid hash is enough to send the user into the stratosphere, while a pound of the strongest variety would be enough to intoxicate a population of 15,000.

These figures provide some clue-but only a partial clue-to the damage done by the massive quantities of marihuana and hashish consumed in our country last year.

THE EMERGENCE OF AN ALCOHOL-CANNABIS EPIDEMIC

It must be emphasized that those who are caught up in the cannabis epidemic are not using marihuana or hashish as a substitute for alcohol. With increasing frequency they are being consumed together. The scientists who testified before the subcommittee were agreed that adding ma~ihuana to alcohol, or alcohol to marihuana, does not produce an arithmetic ef­fect but a synergistic, or compounding, effect. The combination of the two intoxicants produces a far more potent and dangerous form of intoxica­tion, whose short and long term consequences we still know very little about. While there are reported to be some 10 million problem drinkers in our country, the overwhelming majority of those who use alcohol are what we call social drinkers, who take it occasionally and with moderation. But at the point where a person takes one drink of whiskey with a joint of pot, we are no longer dealing with a social drinker--we are dealing with someone who is suffering from a highly dangerous form of intoxication.

In its own right, the scale of the current cannabis epidemic would give us plenty to worry about and so is the scale of alcohol abuse. The emergence of an alcohol-cannabis epidemic is even more worrisome.

THE MYTH OF HARMLESSNESS

The spread of the epidemic has been facilitated by the widespread impression that marihuana is a relatively innocuous drug. This impression has been shared by liberals and conservatives, by laymen and judges, and even by people actively involved in the war on drugs. For example, in March of 1973 an advisory committee consisting of some 40 prominent D.C. citizens filed a report urging the complete legalization of marihuana on the ground that:

No demonstrable medical evidence is available to support the assertion that marihuana use is hazardous or detrimental to the physical or mental health of the user.

The widespread acceptance of the myth of harmlessness has been due to several things. Certainly a role of some importance was played by the militant pro-marihuana propaganda campaign conducted by many New Left organizations, by academicians sympathizing with the New Left, and by the entire underground press, ever since the Berkeley uprising.

Some of this propaganda was positively euphoric on the virtues of marihuana. Dr. Joel Fort of San Francisco, a member of the Sociology Department of the University of California and a former consultant on drug abuse to the World Health Organization, had this to say on the subject: "Cannabis is a valuable pleasure giving drug, probably much safter than

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

alcohol, but condemned by the power structure of our society." An article in "The Sciences" by L. Greenwald in 1965 went even further. "Marihuana," said Greenwald, "restores to the student his ability to feel in an often hostile environment, and the liberating action of that drug is going to allow him to experience more intimate social contact."

But the myth of harmlessness has been stimulated in even greater degree by a number of highly publicized writings and by reports, some of­ficial, some unofficial, which have taken a rather benign attitude toward marihuana. A major role was also played by the generous attention which the media bestowed on militant drug enthusiasts like Timothy Leary and Jerry Rubin. The damage was further compounded by the virtual blackout imposed by much of our media--at least until recently--on adverse scienti­fic evidence about the effects of marihuana. The result has been that Congress and the American public have been exposed for years to an appal­lingly one-sided presentation of the marihuana controversy.

Another factor contributing to the myth of harmlessness was the selective manner in which the Shafer Commission Report was handled by the media. This report, as several witnesses pointed out, contained a number of apparently contradictory passages, which made it possible to write a story suggesting caution or to write one suggesting that its emphasis was on tolerance. But it did contain quite a number of fairly strong cautionary passages. It was for the purpose of setting the record straight on the Shafer Commission Report that one of the first witnesses heard by the Sub­committee was Dr. Henry Brill, who had served as senior psychiatric member of the Commission. This is what Dr. Brill had to say on the subject:

I am concerned about the misinterpretations which have developed with respect to the marihuana report of that Com­mission. These misinterpretations result from reading the reassuring passages in the report and ignoring the final conclusions and recommendations, and the passages in the re­port on which they were based. As a result it has been claimed that the Commission's report was intended to give marihuana a clean bill of health, and as a covert, or in­direct support for legalization of this drug in the near future, or as a step in that direction. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From my knowledge of the proceedings of the Commission, I can reaffirm that the report and the subsequent state­ments by the Commission meant exactly what they said, namely that this drug should not be legalized, that control measures for trafficking in the drug were necessary and should be con­tinued, and that use of this drug should be discouraged be­cause of its potential hazards.

It was because of this pervasive imbalance in dealing with the question of marihuana that so many intelligent people have been under the impression that the scientific community regards marihuana as one of the most in­nocuous of all drugs. Part of the purpose of our recent hearings was to correct this imbalance-to present the "other side" of the story-to esta­blish the essential fact that a large number of highly reputable scientists today regard marihuana as an exceedingly dangerous drug. We make no apology,

366 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

therefore, for the one-sided nature of our hearings--they were deliber­ately planned this way.

MARIHUANA .AND THE LAW

In previous statements, I have made it clear that I am opposed to the decriminalization of marihuana use and that I believe some penalties have to be retained. However, a man would have to be devoid of compassion if he did not sympathize with the plight of a youthful offender who was caught smoking marihuana because he succumbed to peer pressures or to the bad advice he received from older students and from a small but vociferous group of academicians. (The academic propagandists for marihuana are pro­tected by the First Amendment, but in my judgment they are far more culp­able than the young people who have heeded their advice!) In moat cases involving youthful offenders, especially first offenders, the purpose of justice is not served by sentencing them to prison and giving them criminal records. Our federal laws and many of our state laws have in recent years been modified in a manner that reflects a more compassionate approach, and the law is further tempered by the compassionate understanding which the great majority of judges have for the problems of young people.

Although there is still some unevenness in the state law governing the use of marihuana and although there is always room for review and improvement, in practice very few young people are being sent to prison for simple possession of marihuana, especially when they are first offenders. On this point, there is such broad agreement that I feel it is no longer at issue.

But there is a militant lobby in our country which has been agitating and lobbying for the complete legalization of marihuana. As a stepping stone in that direction, they are working for the complete decriminalization of simple possession. This means that personal use of marihuana would no longer be covered by criminal law, that it would not even be considered a misdemeanor under the law. These matters till are at issue--and I truth­fully believe that they cannot intelligently be decided without an assess­ment of the known and potential dangers posed by marihuana use.

Not all drugs are equal--no one, for example, has yet proposed that we deal with coffee and heroin, or tobacco and heroin, in exactly the same manner. And the evidence I have presented in the preceding pages should be sufficient to establish that the dangers of cannabis are much closer to the dangers of heroin, in scope and quality, than they are to be admitted but far more limited dangers of coffee or tobacco--or, for that matter, alcohol.

The scientists who testified before the subcommittee were unanimous on the point that it made no sense to send young people to prison for sim­ple possession of a few joints of marihuana. On the other hand, they were strongly opposed to legalization, and not one of them spoke in favor of decriminalization. They expressed the belief that it would seriously under­cut any national effort to discourage marihuana use if all penalties were removed for simple possession, as the Shafer Commission had recommended-­and which remains the continuing objective of the pro~arihuana lobby. Dr. Brill, who, as a member of the Shafer Commission, had voted in favor

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

of eliminating all penalties, indicated to the subcommittee that he was now rethinking this recommendation.

Commenting on the proposal that the decision on whether or not to use drugs, and especially marihuana, should be left to the individual, Dr. Andrew Malcolm, a distinguished Canadian psychiatrist, called for a combination of education and the law. Said Dr. Malcolm:

It is necessary to have some external restraint when indeed, some of the people are incapable of exercising internal re­straint. But those people who propose [that the matter be left to] "wise personal choice" usually are unalterably op­posed to any kind of external restraint. It is very fool­ish, because what we need, in fact, is both of these ele­ments.

Dr. Phillip Zeidenberg, Chairman of the Drug Dependence Committee of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, while he held that the marihuana epidemic could not be eradicated by legal measures alone, nevertheless strongly opposed legalization and said that there have to be some penalties for use. These were Dr. Zeidenberg's words:

I believe that legalization will turn on a "green light" which will enormously increase the number of chronic heavy users, just as it has in every other country where de facto legalization exists. Once this happens, marihuana will be­come an integral part of our social structure and take on complicated social and symbolic significance, as tobacco and alcohol already have. Once this happens, it will be vir­tually impossible to remove it.

Ultrapunitive measures taken against individuals oc­cassionally using the drug can only lead to the backlash of pressure for legalization. Offenders should be given light, but significant sentences, enough to be a sufficient deterrent to repeated use. Chronic heavy users should be offered psychiatric treatment, not jail • ••• The job of the law is to find the appropriate deterrent so that the mari­huana problem is kept as a minor drug-abuse problem without crucifying errant adolescents.

Warning about the drive to legalize cannabis in the United States, Professor Nils Bejerot of Sweden said:

The demand for legalizing cannabis has been strongest in those countries which have had the shortest experience and the weakest forms of the drug. Correspondingly, I con­sider that as a psychiatrist one's attitude to cannabis be­comes more negative the more one sees of its effects.

If cannabis were legalized in the United States, this would probably be an irreversible process not only for this country and this generation, but perhaps for the whole of Western civilization. As far as I can see, another result would be a breakdown of the international control system regarding narcotics and dangerous drugs.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

The pro-marihuana lobby brandishes the statistic that there were some 400,000 arrests nationwide for marihuana offenses last year. They do so in a manner which creates the impression that some 400,000 young people went to jail because they were caught with a few joints in their possession. The actual situation is quite different.

The number of arrests involving marihuana was very high, among other reasons because virtually every petty criminal arrested for shoplifting or burglary or mugging or other similar offenses had marihuana in his possession at the time of his arrest. But according to many reports, our law enforcement authorities--federal, state, and local-- in most cases do not even bother to make arrests when they find young people smoking mari­huana or in possession of less than an ounce.

The cases that do come to court for the most part receive suspended sentences or fines, while most states now have a provision in their laws, similar to the provision in the federal law, calling for the expunging of the record for first offenders after one year, if parole is satisfactorily completed.

However, the law is uneven from state to state. Some states, while they have the theoretical power to send first offenders to prison, in practice rarely use this power. But here and there, it must be conceded, simple possession is still punished by prison terms.

I believe it would be helpful in dealing with this situation if the federal law and state laws could be brought into basic harmony on the question of marihuana. I do not suggest that the states slavishly adapt their laws to the current federal model; in many respects, in fact, I think federal law has something to learn from existing state statutes.

There is one state statute that does not recommend itself as a model: that is the marihuana law recently adopted by the State of Oregon. Under this law, simple possession of small quantities of marihuana is not treated as a violation of the criminal law but as a civil violation--something akin to a parking ticket. While the maximum fine provided is one hundred dollars, in practice the fines imposed rarely exceed thirty dollars. And those thus fined, if they can afford it, can go on collecting marihuana violations just as freely as some chronic illegal parkers collect parking tickets.

This approach, I submit, is altogether too permissive and just doesn't take into account the serious social damage done by marihuana or the com­pelling need to protect society against the spread of the habit. It doesn't take into consideration the basic fact that all drug addiction--including marihuana addiction--~s like a contagious disease. Society can't remain indifferent to the spread of this disease.

The law must be framed in a manner that makes it unmistakably clear to young people that smoking marihuana is a crime against society. This is something that decriminalization would completely destroy. I believe that the kind of escalated penalties provided by state law in New Mexico, to give one example, make much more sense. Under this law, the possession of one ounce or less for a first offender is punishable by a fine of $50 to $100 and/or 15 days in jail. The jail sentences are rarely imposed, but this much discretion is given to the judge. The penalty for repeat

I

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

offenders is a fine of $100 to $1,000 and/or one year in jail. Suspended sentences are frequently given and there is provision for expunging the record after one year.

New legislation governing the use of drugs requires the most careful consideration by Congress because--as Dr. Bejerot pointed out concessions to tolerance, once made, are very difficult, if not impossible, to eradi­cate. However, as far as marihuana use is concerned, I believe that the philosophy guiding such legislation might well be based on the opinions expressed by Dr. Zeidenberg and the other scientists who testified before the subcommittee. I think there is much merit to Dr. Zeidenberg's pro­posal, for example, that instead of jail sentences, we might consider sending chronic abusers for a period of time to an institution where they will be given intensive education on drugs and psychiatric treatment if they need it.

When it comes to the pushers and the traffickers, I think our fed­eral and state laws have got to be reinforced. I find it an outrage that, over and over again, criminals caught in the possession of hundreds and even thousands of pounds of marihuana get off with very light sentences or even with six months suspended sentence. For the pushers and traffic­kers, there have got to be heavY minimum sentences, and they have got to be mandat ory •

The suggestion has been made that it might help to break up the traffic in drugs if offenders at every level--users, pushers, and small and intermediate traffickers--could be assured of suspended sentences if they cooperated by identifying the source, or sources, from which they had obtained their drugs. This is a proposal which merits serious con­sideration.

There are s orne who argue that tough law enforcement is not the answer to the drug problem, that we won't be able to deal effectively with the drug problem until we eliminate our slums, eliminate poverty, eliminate unemployment, and create a social utopia. I am all in favor of doing everything we reasonably can do to improve the quality of our society. But the fact is that every year since the early sixties has witnessed a massive increase in the amount we spend for new social programs--and the same period of time has witnessed a staggering increase in our drug prob­lem.

No drug problem has ever been controlled by decriminalization or by social reforms. In every country where the drug problems have been ef­fectively controlled, it has been thanks to strong laws against both the use and sale of the drug. That is how it is controlled in Communist countries; and that is how it has been controlled in some non-Communist countries, both authoritarian and democratic. There is no serious drug problem for the indigenous population or for the GI's, in either Taiwan or South Korea. Nor is there one in Japan. The contrast between Germany and Italy is most instructive in this connection. In Germany, where drug laws are lax and law enforcement ineffective because it is fragmented among the Laender, or states, there has been a runaway epidemic of hashish consumption among the American GI's. (According to Defense Department witnesses, this situation has now improved significantly--although it

370 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

still remains serious.) In Italy, where the drug laws are much stronger, drug use among GI's has been kept to a minimal level. The GI's in both countries are basically the same. The difference is the law.

THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

The scale of the marihuana-hashish epidemic makes it essential that we embark--with as little delay as possible--on a national educational program directed in the first place to our young people.

Can the facts that are assembled in this volume be communicated to young people who are disposed to be skeptical about information they re­ceive from "the establishment?" I am convinced that this evidence can be communicated to young people and can influence them--because ~t is far more graphic, far more persuasive and far more authoritative than any in­formation that has heretofore been available for marihuana education pro­grams.

Dr. Forrest Tennant, who was in charge of the U.S. Army drug program in Europe from 1968 to 1970, told the subcommittee that at one point he had actually given up on anti-cannabis educational programs because the material at that time was not too persuasive, and while the programs discouraged some GI's, they stimulated the curiosity of others, so that there was no real net progress. He expressed the conviction, however, that armed with the recent evidence that had been presented to the sub­committee by so many eminent scientists, it would be possible to mount an educational program that GI's would find credible. The fact is that no young person wants to run the risk of irreversible brain damage, and no young male wants his male hormone level reduced by more than 40 percent or his sperm count reduced to close to zero. Nor does any young person, boy or girl, want to run the risk of genetically damaged children. These are dangers that young people will respond to.

There is an even larger matter that should be considered by every young person who finds himself yielding to the temptation of drugs or to peer pressures. Whatever each of us does, affects, for better or for worse, all those around us. And the fact that every young person who takes marihuana or hashish or other drugs, drags down not only himself, but drags down his friends, drags down his family, drags down his community, drags down his nation. I would commend to every young person who is pre­pared to stop and think the wise words of Dr. Gabriel Nahas, one of the eminent scientists who appeared as a witness before the Subcommittee:

One may wonder • • • how long a political system can endure when drug taking becomes one of the prerequisites of happiness. If the American dream has lost its attraction, it will not be retrieved through the use of stupefying drugs. Their use only delays the young in their quest to understand the world they now live in and their desire to foster a better world for tommorrow.

A final word of an editorial nature. So many scientific papers and supporting documents were left with the subcommittee by the witnesses that

37l Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

the inclusion of all of them would have made this a document of almost prohibitive length. In the interests of econoffilf, only a portion of these documents have been included in the Appendix. I particularly regret that it was not possible to include a bibliography of some 800 cannabis research papers which Professor W. D. M. Paton of Oxford prepared for the subcom­mittee, because this volume was already in page proof at the times of its arrival. I ask the indulgence of the scientists who gave supplementary material to the subcommittee which has not been included in the printed Appendix. Hopefully, this material can be included in a followup study or documentation.

On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to thank the many distinguished witnesses who gave so generously of their time to make these landmark hearings possible.

******

LAW REPRINT AVAILABLE

Reprints of Howard S. Altarescu's article:

"Problems Remaining for the 'Generally

Accepted' Polygraph"

are available from: BHF Printing P. O. Box 83 Auburndale, Massachusetts 02166

for $1.15 each, postpaid.

This scholarly article considers many of the problems to be faced in court. It first appeared in ~ Boston ~ Review, Volume 53, Number 2, March 1973, pp. 375-405.

372

• Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

A LANDMARK DECISION ON POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE

By

Thomas G. Beatty

On June 12, 1974, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, while not granting general admissibility of polygraph examination results, held that under certain circumstances and at the prerogative of the trial judge, polygraph results could be admitted into evidence. The de­cision was written for a juvenile case appeal, and will undoubtedly serve to hasten judicial and general public acceptance of the polygraph as a valuable investigative and evidenciary tool. With this case, Massachusetts has become the first state whose Supreme Court has allowed the admission of polygraphic evidence without stipulation.

The case (Commonwealth ~. ~ Juvenile [No. IJ 15 Cr. L. Reptr. 2323 [1974J) concerned a jury finding of delinquency, by reason of manslaughter. The juvenile denied being the cause of the victim's death, and underwent two polygraph examinations by different expert examiners. He claimed that the tests were indicative of his innocence, and moved that they be accepted into evidence. He also requested that a court appointed examiner test him, or that a Commonwealth appointed examiner test him, to verify the findings of the original examiners. The trial judge, rather unwillingly, denied the motion, generally stating that the legislature and the courts have both not accepted polygraph evidence, and that it was not the place of a trial court to set a precedent.

Previous Massachusetts law is, indeed, imposing. Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266 (1963), said that polygraphic evidence may not-be admitted until it achieves the "general acceptance of the scientific com­munity as a reliable method for determining whether an individual is telling the truth." The Fatalo case castigated the polygraph profession for major discrepancies in opinions which existed among examiners and scientific analysts, and was disturbed at the lack of uniformity among examiners themselves. There was no official standards governing the conduct or quali­fications of examiners. Virtually anyone could "hang up a shingle" and go into the polygraph business. Until a uniform minimum standard of competence was obtained in training and background, and until the general scientific community was in significant agreement, about the methods of interpretation and the validity of the test, the Fatalo court refused to admit polygraph evidence. Even today, Massachusetts has no statute regulating examiners.

In this opinion, there were three dissents, indicating a fierce dis­agreement over policy on the question of the polygraph. In the dissent by Justices Kaplan, Reardon, and Quirico, they stated:

My impression is that, in the family of scientific aids to the forensic search for truth, the polygraph remains a rather remote relation of shabby gentility.

Against this background, the majority felt that the science of poly­graph testing had advanced to the point that it could be of "significant

373 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

value to the criminal trial process." Specifically, the court said:

••• if a defendant agrees in advance to the admission of the results of a polygraph test regardless of their out­come, the trial judge, after a close and searching inquiry into the qualifications of the examiner, the fitness of the defendant for such examination, and the methods utilized in conducting the tests, may, in the proper ex­ercise of his discretion, admit the results, not as binding or conclusive evidence, but to be considered with all other evidence as to innocence or guilt. As a pre­requisite the judge would first make sure that the de­fendant's constitutional rights are fully protected.

Many phrases of this holding were given broader explanation in the text of the opinion. For example, "if a defendant agrees", is further illucidated. There are four ways, a defendant can agree: First, when the defendant moves that he be examined by an examiner of his own choosing, second, when the defendant moves that he be examined by an expert chosen by the Commonwealth, third, when he moves to be examined by a joint com­mittee of examiners chosen by both himself and by the Commonwealth, and fourth, when the defendant moves that there be an examiner appointed by the court.

The defendant must agree that the results will be admissable, in advance, "regardless of their outcome". However, "the judge would first make sure that the defendant's constitutional rights" were fully protected. The court emphasized here, that it be clear that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The defendant must not be required by the prosecution to undergo a polygraph examination, as this would in­fringe on his right not to testify against himself. The test must be sought under the defendant's own volition. Secondly, the court must in­form the defendant of his rights prior to the test. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 u.S. 436, (1966). Although to date, there is no requirement of a Miranda direction when the interrogation is not performed by a police of­ficer, dictum from cases such as People y. Carter, 88 Cal.Rptr. 546 (Cal. App. [1970J). State y. Keiper 493 P.2d. 750 [Ore. App. (1972)J, indicated that a court approved polygraph examiner may be required to issue such a directive.

The "close and searching inquiry into the qualifications of the ex­aminer" described by the majority, is not explicitly defined in the opinion. Rather, the court found it not wise, "at this time, to limit the trial judge's discretion on matters of expert testimony by formulating strict minimum standards". The court preferred to require a "high degree of care" in evaluating an examiner's credibility and skills. Since the defendant is bound by the results of the examination, it is presumed that his attorney, too, will take a "high degree of care" in choosing an examiner.

The results of the polygraph test will be given no special significance, it is merely become another bit of evidence in the overall body of the trial, to be considered by the jury. The dissent worried about jury reaction to

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

the initiation of polygraph evidence, fearing that it might be considered too heavily and to the exclusion of other pertinent evidence. The jury might accept the examiner's testimony almost without question because of "an almost impenetrable aura of scientific infallabilitY" about the poly­graph. This dissent is, in reality, a veiled attack on the credibility of the polygraph and examiners in general, and not an insinuation of "jury gullibilitY", for in the annals of justice it is rare, indeed, to exclude evidence because it might be believed in too firmly. The dissent here feels of evidenciary tools, for that juries because of an almost folk­lorish reverence for "lie-detector" tests, will give undeserved credence to the results.

Recent evidence indicates that juries will not be overwhelmed by the import of the polygraph testimony and therefore give less credence ,to other evidence. For example, in a recent supreme court of Utah case, Utah v. Jenkins, the jury considered polygraph evidence which tended to SiiOW the innocence of an accused forger, while conflicting testimony, in­cluding eyewitnesses tended to show guilt. It was the jury's perrogative to assign the test results a comparative value with the other testimony. The jury convicted Jenkins, finding him guilty beyon~a reasonable doubt in spite of the polygraph testimony favoring Jenkins.

If there is any truth to the dissent, the majority attempts to pre­vent its purported consequences by advocating a rigorous cross-examination of the expert at the trial, by both sides, regardless of which side selected the expert. Remembering that the defendant, if he chooses to undergo an examination, is bound by the results: he should have, says the majority, a chance for cross-examination. This cross-examination, will not only insure the defendant of his right to confront witnesses, but will serve as a further incentive for the examiner to make sure that his examination was thorough and unimpeachable.

In essence, then, this case broadcasts to other judges, at least in the state of Massachusetts, that at their own discretion, theY-may allow into evidence, polygraph results. The majority calls their decision, "a cautious first step toward the acceptance of polygraph testing." They desire to witness an evolution of polygraph techniques and methods, and a standardization of competence among examiners, and hope that this "cautious first step" will indicate to the profession, areas of juris­prudencial polygraphy which can be further refined.

In view of the extensive debate and controversy which still exist as to the use of polygraphy as an aid to the truth-finding function of the courts, we believe that further learning, experimentation and experience are necessary before more comprehensive and all en­compassing rules are considered for adoption.

The trial judge in this case, denied the juvenile'S motion as a matter of law. The case was remanded, the only issue being whether or not the

lSee also Barnett, Frederick J., "How Does a Jury View Polygraph Examination Results?" Polygraph (1973) 2:4, 275-277.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

trial judge would use his discretionary power to admit the polygraph re­sults into ev:i.dence.

This case represents what may prove to be a growing trend on the part of jurists to re-evaluate prev:i.ous "Fatalo-type" opinions of the past. General judicial acceptance of the polygraph is still years ahead, but with this case, there at least seems to be "a light at the end of the tunnel".

******

THE POLYGRAPH IN COURT

TO: B.H.F. Printing P. O. Box S3 Auburndale, Massachusetts 02166

Gentlemen: Please forward copies of The Polygraph in Court at $3.65 each to me. I have included my check/money order for:$ .*

[Make checks payable to B.H.F. Printing.]

Name ------------------------------------Address ----------------------------------____________________ ZIP ______ __

376 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS OF POLYGRAPH TECHNIQUE

By

Stanley Abrams, Ph.D.

In order to comprehend the polygraph technique, a clear understanding of its psychological basis is necessary. The area most difficult to explain to a jurist, or to the population in general, is a control question tech­nique. It is incomprehensible to a lay person how a subject could respond more to a control question, "Prior to June 1974, did you ever think of killing someone?" in contrast to a relevant question, "On June 12, 1974, did you kill John Henry?" regardless of whether guilty or innocent of the act. The uninformed expect that the relevant question would be so threaten­ing that it would be inevitable that an individual would react more to that question than to the control question.

Backster explains the tendency of the guilty to respond to the relevant and the innocent to react to the control in terms of the concept of set. To understand this, one must conceive that environment is constantly bom­barding an individual with a wide range of stimuli. It is obvious that it is impossible to attend to all of these cues, thus, the individual perceives selectively. In order to function, in fact in order to survive, one must focus on some stimuli and ignore others. What one attends to is dependent upon both heredity and learning. The genetic constitution prepares the individual to respond to certain kinds of cues such as loud noises, bright colors, or movements which automatically dominate the perceptual field. Other areas of attention are learned and vary from person to person. Walking down a street, a painter would be much more aware of the houses, a gardner the lawns, and a roofer the roofs. For each of these individuals the re­mainder of the environment would be ignored, remaining essentially unseen and unremembered.

A stimulus must compete with many others. What makes one stimulus stand out over the others may be novelty, complexity, suddenness, intensity (loudness, brightness, etc.), or relevance to a person's needs. Drives or needs are capable of lowering sensory thresholds so that the individual be­comes selectively sensitive to particular stimuli. Objects related to satisfying a need or reducing a drive are focused upon while others are relatively ignored.

In polygraph testing, some examiners recommend that factors of sudden­ness, intensity, complexity, and novelty should be strictly avoided, with each question being equivalent in all of these areas. They emphasize drive reduction. They prefer that the competition between stimuli should be solely between the control and relevant questions, with the irrelevant questions having little or no distracting effect. Distraction can be de­fined as the interference that is created Qy other stimuli which are not in harmony with a particular goal. In contrast, a set is a combination of the body's orientation and expectancy, both of which involve perception, at­tention, and motivation.

377 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

The subject in a polygraph examination is actively avoiding being caught in a lie. His attention, therefore, is riveted on those questions, whether they are relevant or controls, to which he intends to be deceptive. For the innocent, a lie being detected on the control question, "Prior to June 1974, did you ever think of killing someone?" is a threat because it might create a poor impression that could imply guilt. His set, regardless of his fear of being deceptive on the relevant item is on the control. For the guilty subject, his set is 'on the relevant question even though he is lying to both the control and the key question. Deception to the control cannot compete with lying to the relevant item because of the implications of being detected in a lie to the latter, even though he is lying to both the control and the key question, and because of the implications of being detected in a lie to the latter.

If the individual attempts to distract himself by concentrating on other stimuli, either restful (as in Yoga) or of high intensity (thinking of some stimulating situation), it is impossible for most people to accomplish this in the polygraph setting, with its constant give and take, instructions, controls, responses, and polygraphic recording. The result is that the innocent respond to their deception on the control questions while the guilty react to their lying on the relevant items.

The stimulus in polygraphy is the question asked of the subject. This query if perceived by the central nervous system (eNS) as a threat, causes fear, and activates the autonomic nervous system (ANS). This activation may also be accomplished by such emotions as undifferentiated excitement, fear, pain, anger, disappointment, depression, and pleasure, to name some. The degree of sympathetic (SNS) or parasympathetic (PNS) dominance associated with each of these feeling states varies. In undifferentiated excitement, with increased ANS activity, the sympathetic branch is markedly dominant. Fear, however, is characterized as practically a pure pattern of sympathetic dominance. While pain is a pattern of sensory activity rather than one of the emotional states, it also elicits a sympathetic nervous system (SNS) response. Anger is believed to be associated with a marked activity of the SNS, but there are also PNS components. In disappointment and pleasure there is not an emergency response present so that in these instances there is an overcompensation on the part of the PNS. A possibility exists in the case of depression, that both branches of the ANS are in a hyporeactive state. All of these emotional states affect the ANS, but each one in a different manner. Unfortunately, current polygraph instrumentation does not have the capability of differentiating one emotion from another.

Since pain, excitement, conflict, guilt, fear, and anger can create deceptive-like responses, it is the responsibility of the polygraphist to eliminate all of these feelings which are not specifically indicative of lying. The importance of the pre-test interview cannot be sufficiently emphasized in accomplishing this purpose. It is here that a practical de­termination must be made of the individual's psychiatric condition for, as indicated, depression will blunt the responses while heightened anxiety will cause an erratic performance. The subject's physical state must be evaluated to ascertain if any interfering bodily states, such as excessive fatigue or pain are present. Recognizing that the latter activates the SNS, the exami­nation should be postponed. If not, you will probably get an unresolved

378 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

examination. Pain does not cause error in chart interpretation as to deception or no deception, it is non-specific as to questions, and causes only general nervous tension. Specific anger is eliminated by interviewing techniques to avoid possible stimulation at a relevant question, which could produce misleading results. Of course, general hostility does not cause selective responses, and is not a danger to interpretations despite the other problems it may create.

It is expected that generalized anxiety will exist in almost every polygraph subject, and while it can be reduced, it cannot be eliminated. Although anxiety is related to fear, generally, one can distinguish between the two. Anxiety tends to be chronic and attenuated, with the cause not usually being discernible. The predominant feeling is apprehension and is often related to some vague future threat. In contrast, fear is a~ute; the precipitating causes are real and recognizable, and the physiological responses are immediate. The examinee's response to the test situation in general is anxiety, while to deception to a particular question, the re­action is fear. Thus, the anxiety would be present throughout the test, but fear would occur only in response to deception. In the pre-test inter­view, the examiner must stimulate this emotion as a response to deception. What seems to be lacking in much of the literature is that fear must be created as a reaction to deception on the control questions as well as the relevant. Both the guilty and the innocent must be convinced of the poly­graphist's ability to detect lying, and while the importance of deception on the relevant items is obvious, it should be made clear that truthfulness on the control questions is also of significance. If this is not accom­plished, an honest subject might not demonstrate a sufficiently strong physiological reaction to deception on the control questions.

While fear is the emotion most likely to be elicited during deception and creates the largest SNS response, there are two other feeling states that must be considered. Both conflict and guilt can alter the bodily state from parasympathetic to sympathetic dominance.

Fear and conflict are inherent responses, but what one reacts to is learned. Guilt, on the other hand, is a learned response with its beginnings in early childhood. Parents, church, and important people in the child's life teach a specific set of values, attitudes, and morals. These teachings are begun early and taught so thoroughly that they become very firmly in­grained within the individual. Through the process of reward and punish­ment these ideas are introjected to the extent that they seem almost inborn. When the values become part of the child, and the parental figures no longer have to punish any infractions of their rules, the child does it himself. Every time he goes against their teachings, he punishes himself through guilt until he, like most people, functions within the bounds of his con­science. Thus, during a polygraph examination deceptive behavior generally results in some degree of guilt, causing a response in the sympathetic braneh of the ANS. It must be remembered, however, that the development of con­science in some individuals, notably the psychopath, is considerably limited, but the fear of detection remains important, and may account for their ability to react.

379 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Conflict causes tension or anxiety which, like guilt, activates the SNS. A conflict may take three different forms. The first is a situation in which a decision has to be made between two positive goals, for example, a choice between two equally good positions. The second type of conflict is associated with the necessity of selecting one of two negative goals. In this instance, it becomes a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils. The final conflict, and the one relating to polygraphy, is the situation in which the individual, to attain something of value, must also accept something detrimental. When the subject is deceptive in response to a relevant question, the positive aspect is related to an avoidance of implication in a criminal action and the resulting freedom from the ensuing penalty. The negative aspect refers back to guilt and the fear of being caught in a lie. The greater the significance of the conflict and the longer the delay in making the decision, the more intense the stress. Again, the result of this stress is a SNS reaction.

In the case of fear, which is the major activator of a SNS response and the emotion which is most directly related to the ability to detect deception, no conditioning process need be traced back to childhood. The penalty for being caught in a criminal activity is reasonably clear. The threat of imprisonment, financial loss, or personal embarrassment are suf­ficiently obvious to the suspect so that no life-long conditioning process is necessary to explain the fear response. It is enough to indicate that while most people have learned that punishment might follow being detected in a lie, others conceivably have learned that they can lie successfully and, in fact, it is a rewarding experience. For the latter, however, there is considerable embarrassment in being caught at lying. Some conflict and anxiety are also inevitable in such circumstances.

During the polygraph procedure, fear is enhanced by both the belief in the expertise of the polygraphist and the degree of punishment that might be meted out. It should be recognized also that the latter is rela­tive to what the subject has to lose. An examination must involve an issue that is important to the subject, or SNS activity may not occur.

One final note. Because the polygraph is gaining increasing admis­sibility into the courts, it behooves the polygraphist, as an expert witness, to present a good impression. He represents not only himself and his or­ganization, but all polygraphists. Recognizing that it is the role of the attorney in the adversary system to discredit the witness, one's best de­fense is to know thoroughly the field of polygraphy. This includes not only the literature, but also the mechanism of the instrument, and the psychology and physiology which are the basis for the polygraph technique.

******

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

ANGER AND THE POLYGRAPH TECHNIQUE

By

F. L. Hunter

Anger is one of those factors that transcends the safeguards of all polygraph techniques. It attacks the proportionate or orderly whole and destroys harmony. It truly becomes an appropriate emotion to consider because it is so akin to the underlying basis of all polygraph techniques, the fear of detection.

During a recent trial I attended regarding the admissibility of a polygraph test, a question was asked about the accuracy of the examination. In specific terms a question was raised as to when will the testing reach a level of absolute perfection. The answer made was quite explicit. In order to attain a level of absolute perfection in a polygraph examination you must first have an instrument incapable of malfunction which is used by an examiner incapable of error, who is testing a subject in perfect physical, mental and emotional condition, incapable of influence by any extraneous factors.

THE PSYCHOLOOY OF ANGER

A basic study of emotions is raised in most polygraph schools, however, the majority of time there is appropriately spent in evaluating fear. On review, we note that anger is the most exciting emotion, and that fear is the most depressing of all the emotions. According to Cannon (1939) in his flight or fight theory, anger as well as fear induces sympathetic ex­citation and adrenaline secretion. But psychologically speaking anger is different from fear. It is based on a different appraisal, namely, that something harmful can be overcome, rather than the appraisal that this something is so overwhelming that it is difficult to escape. Also, anger is experienced differently, as a tendency to fight, strike, and tear, in­stead of an urge to cower or escape. There is a sensation of tension and fullness instead of the sensation of weakness and tremor so noticeable in fear. Not only can anger be replaced by fear, fear sometimes makes place for anger. When flight is unsuccessful and the threatening thing is upon us, we may yet fight it and succeed. Anger born of desperation has served many a lost cause.

Ray Franklin Richardson (1918) reveals three clear types of conscious behavior in reference to anger. The first type is in the general direction of the emotive tendency and is the one that most impulsively follows on the stimulus of the emotion. It expresses pugnacity in some form. This type of reaction expresses a tendency, similar to the basal instinct of the emotion of anger, such as thinking, cutting remarks, imagining the offenders humiliation, hostile witticism, joking and sarcasm. This type of

Mr. F. L. Hunter is the Chief Examiner at John E. Reid & Associates, Vice President for Private Examiners in the APA, and a licensed examiner in Illinois, Florida and Texas.

381

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

reaction is called Attributive Reaction.

A second type is contrary to pugnacity; the instinctive impulse is reversed. A friendly attitude may be assumed toward the offender, an adequate excuse is found for his offense, and over polite attitude may be taken. This type of behavior is called the Contrary Reaction.

A third type is one that is entirely of a conscious attitudinal character. The subject becomes indifferent to the whole situation exciting the emotion. The offense may suddenly be apathetically ignored and the subject behaves unconcerned and assumes an "I don't care", or a "What is the use" attitude. This is called an Indifferent Reaction.

These three types of behavior are characteristic of the reactive con­sciousness to anger. The emotion may contain one, as it may contain all three of these types before it finally ends. The initial reaction to anger is usually of the attributive reaction (71%). Whatever other reactions may follow in the course of the entire anger period, the attributive reaction in some form is characteristic of the early stage of the emotion. The contrary (18%) and indifferent (11%) are secondary in point of time and oc­cur after the initial hostile tendencies have been restrained.

The aim of angry behavior may be said to be three fold, referring to the total mental situation from which the three main types of anger arise; (1) to enhance self-feeling which has been lowered; (2) to get rid of the opposing obstacle to the continuity of associative processes; (3) to recover from one's wounded sense of justice.

From a familiar view let us briefly consider the reactive conscious­ness to anger. First, on the feeling side there occurs a mental situation accompanied by a tendency to expression in order to remove or modify this situation. For example, if you are asked to take a polygraph test and you tell your employer you don't think it's a good idea. You say it will be bad for employee morale, but deep inside you don't think the situation warrants such an investigative move. You are now irritated with your em­ployer'S thinking not his proposed action.

Irritation may be relieved or turned into pleasantness by the reaction from your employer. Lowered self-feelings may be restored with extra compensation in pleasurable feelings of victory, if the reaction to your objection has been successful. Second, the expression of anger involves restraint. In our example, your employer insists and therefore you re­luctantly agree to take the polygraph test, even though you think it is a bad idea. Cruder unsocial tendencies are controlled and others are sub­stituted of a lesser objectionable and offensive nature. So you take the polygraph test, however, exhibit very hostile and sarcastic remarks to the examiner, and reluctantly give your cooperation during the test. B,y both objective and subjective reaction, devices of disguise, transfer, and modi­fication of the unsocial pugnacious tendencies, allow this restraint to be released and the emotive tendency fully satisfied in which a feeling of pleasantness follows from this alternate behavior. Third, the reaction which has been fully satisfactory from the feeling side, is followed by a partial or complete immunity against the recurrence of the anger from the same

382 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

mental situation. So, you state to the polygraph examiner that you will never take a polygraph test again.

Edward J. Murray (1964) states that this angry process might be clearer if we define frustration as the emotionally arousing condition, anger as the intervening emotinal state, and aggression as one of the many possible responses to anger.

A person may be frustrated, feel angry, and have an aggressive tendency but still not show aggression because of inhibition. The inhibition may be due to a fear of punishment or social disapproval. Inhibited aggression does not simply go away but seeks an outlet. Aggression may be expressed indirectly by backbiting or by sullenness. By the mechanism of displace­ment, it may also be expressed towards someone other than the person res­ponsible for the frustration.

Anger itself may be appraised in turn. If the interference with our goal is the doing of someone in authority, we may be afraid that our anger may be met with anger and possibly with retaliation. Hence anger will arouse fear whenever we are afraid of the consequences of such anger, whether there may be retaliation or the pain of hurting someone we love. In either case, we are not afraid of our anger but of its forseen results.

As soon as anger arouses fear, it will give way to fear, because an appraisal leading to a positive emotion has given way to another leading to a negative emotion. While anger and courage may act in combination anger and fear cannot. We cannot attack the obstacle as long as that attack threatens serious harm. Anger is not repressed, it is replaced by fear, as soon as this appraisal prevails. And once fear is aroused by anger, fear will increase with every similar frustration. In this way a reaction to a frustration may be established that represents an enduring attitude of fear.

To be free to express anger openly or even to accept his own anger, an adult must have the assurance that the goal toward which he aims is justified, and that whatever obstructs him is not. Anger is either right­eous or it is malicious. For it to be righteous anger, there must be some fault in whatever obstructs the goal.

Psychologically speaking self blame (anger turned inwards) is closer to fear than to anger because the person appraises the situation as dif­ficult and himself as inadequate in dealing with it. He feels helpless though he recognizes that the situation is not really threatening and he becomes impatient with his own reaction.

In summation, we find that the psychology involved with the emotion of anger varies from fear greatly in the majority of instances, the ex­ceptions being when we are afraid of the results of our anger, and when we turn anger inwards against ourselves. In these instances we find, that anger so parallels fear that they are practically indecipherable, and misinterpreting anger as fear now becomes a possibility.

383

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

THE PHYSIOLOOY OF ANGER

While there are still many opinions as to exact physiological <iii'­ferences between fear and anger, we do find a general agreement that they are similar physiological reactions. Arnold (1950) argues from both neurological evidence and a reconsideration of published data, that fear is a strong arousal state of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic ner­vous system, whereas anger is a strong arousal state of both the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. The most recent research to date suggests that anger represents the physiological indications of cholinergic excitation while fear is the excitement of adrenergic nerves. Anger differs from fear in that noradrenaline is re­leased into the system during anger and adrenaline is released during fear.

Noradrenaline secretion increases the blood sugar available to the muscles without breaking down muscle glycogen, and so promotes muscle strength. This would explain why anger gives us the feeling of being stronger. Adrenaline does not improve muscular performance. Rather, it reduces efficiency by increasing lactic acid formulation and by interferring with glucose and oxygen utilization. Since adrenaline secreted during fear will significantly reduce muscle glycogen, this results in a feeling of weakness during fear. The primary effects however of both adrenaline and noradrenaline seems to be vasoconstruction.

Tears, abundant during temper tantrums, are completely inhibited during fear. The secretion of tears is the effect of parasympathetic excitation.

The frequency of urination which occurs both in fear and anger may be caused by two different mechanisms; during fear, by the relaxation of the sympathetically innervated sphincter, during anger, as a result of bladder contraction (a cholinergic symptom) which induces a reflex relaxation of the sphincter.

Trembling we find is of no service and often of much disservice to the body. Of all the emotions fear notoriously is the most apt to induce trembling, however, it is occasionally experienced with great anger or joy.

The cause of increasing perspiration is thought by some physiologists to be connected with the failing power of the capillary circulation; and we know that the vasomotor system, which regulates the capillary circula­tion can be affected by either fear or anger.

Albert Ax (1953) found a very low correlation among the physiological reactions and the significantly higher intercorrelation for anger than for fear, which was interpreted as indicating greater physiological integration during anger. His research also pointed out diastolic blood pressure rises, heart rate falls, rises in skin conductance, and muscle potential increases were greater for anger than for fear; whereas skin conductance increases, number of muscle potential increases, and respiration rate increases were greater for fear than for anger.

In summation we find that sophisticated physiological instruments and tests are able to differentiate anger from fear, however, the physiological

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

effects are very close in a number of aspects. It becomes extremely hard to differ between physiological responses of fear and anger in some cases unless we have the capability of comparing the reactions from both states regarding the same subjects.

ANGER INFLUENCES ON POLYGRAPH RECORDS

Since in some people the psychology of anger can induce fear, and the recorded physiological patterns of the two may be similar, we find that anger in some instances can resemble fear on our polygraph records.

CASE I

In our first example [Figure 1 - A] we will see significant responses in blood pressure. This record is possible in a truthful man when that man is angry at being accused or suspected of a crime. Since the examiner was able to recognize the subject's mental status regarding anger he did not continue the test until he was reasonably sure the subject's attitude was softening. In our second example [Figure 1 - C] after this softening process the man's blood pressure has stabilized with a significant rise on the control question, number 6, which indicated his truthfulness to the issue under investigation. This subject was later verified truthful by another's confession.

3

3 S Figure 1 -

185 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

CASE II

Here we have an example in which the subject was co-operative, but very resentful. He seemed to hold himself back to keep from swearing in the examiner's presence. He said he was resentful for being suspected of a burglary. He stated the police and his employer thought the burglary was an inside job and he felt they were blaming him. He had been thoroughly questioned a few days before the test. Finally he had told the examiner he liked and wanted to keep his job and that it was important to him.

In Figure 2 let us look at question 3 (relevant question about breaking into the theater) compared to control question 6. In this case [Figure 3J compare question 5 (Did you commit the burglary?) with the control question, #11.

----_._- .. _-_ .. - .•. _ ......•. _- ..... _-... _-,-- ._ .. _ ... -_ .. _. -- .. --.-

Figure 2

386 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

---t-----.-~.--.--<---

-

Figure 3

Now let us see what took place on his re-examination the next day. At this time the subject displayed a more open hostility, however, after the test he apologized to the examiner for being so hostile. The change in Figure 4 on question 3 is now much less when compared to control ques­tion, #6. In Figure 5, question #5 has a less significant response than the control question, #6.

387 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

6 .~~ ------

Figure 4

388

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

I

I\/VV\JVJV\J\AJJ(/\J\/\/ --------..-;r;-I ------

/."" \ , . \

\,.", / \

"r",,'-"- I;;" .,i'iI'· Ipl/"';lJ '~I'fIIi"l:l "I'I'nlpf:jl/p ',['/llil'I'fl , I' I , li/I,'I

s ~I

Figure 5

CASE III

The next example [Figure 6J shows us a more confusing disturbance which could be easily misinterpreted as deception. This record is from a verified truthful subject who was implicated in a homicide. The subject's pre-test was full of open hostility, emphasized with choice words of pro­fanity in describing his contempt of the polygraph testing.

389 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

i \~

i

t :\-Q

--=~--. , --=_~i ;=--.

---=::... -----.. -~

~-i:=:--..: :-::r----; ---::~

-~9 -e--=----

-.=:J . ~~' ~r-~j _ .:::r--. ~::;---'. ,

-:-;- ; -_ -c.;:=:j_

~~~. --=:...~

-== __ ~i' ---.-.:; .. ~

• -0 :r ~

rrl ;

;:c IIi

c:; pc

:--1

Z ("\ . ...." en :'

./

_-1 .~- --

( , !

!

')

i

i -'.

Figure 6

390

---------~

-----­.---.::::-:. ~­c-.----.~~

L-.=::::::i ---' c----...:::::' __ I

'-----' c=:--+-~ ---, ,'------

~ ... --.'-...

1 .- ..... __ '--=::-::'t

L

""\ (-.

~: I~l

I-.

C S" '---.., rr

C -----_--.::--> ~-

<-c· .~;:-,

---~~~-::-s--- .... ----r-':'>

~ (:---~ ---.. ----, ,/ ----,.,--"; .-.:;.)

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

CASE IV

Our last example [Figure 7J reflects a subject suspected of stealing merchandise from his employer. Initially the subject exhibited his re­sentment with the test when he refused to answer the control questions, but was finally persuaded to do so after an extensive discussion. During the subject's test he also became very angry with the length of the ex­amination and said, "Don't you have enough tests to show now that I am innocent!" Observe the responses [7-AJ on relevant questions B & 5 com­pared to control questions 6 & 11. Now compare this to a record from the subject's re-examination after his resentful attitude was alleviated [7-BJ. Note the respiration suppression on control question 6 compared to relevant question 5. A subsequent polygraph test of another employee who admitted the theft, verified this subject's truthfulness.

A

- - -

Figure 7

391 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

It now becomes convincingly apparent that anger can certainly in­fluence a subject in such a way as to cause him to appear to reflect deception on his polygraph records when in fact he is telling the truth. How then do we provide safeguards to prevent errors of this sort from occurring.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ANGER

Darwin (1873) noted that the best source of information about a sub­ject's behavior is the subject himself. Darwin stated that certain com­plex actions are of direct or indirect service under certain states of mind, in order to relieve or gratify certain sensations, desires, etc. and whenever the same state of mind is induced, however feebly, there is a tendency through the force of habit and association for the same move­ments to be performed, though they may not then be of the least use. Some actions ordinarily associated through habit with certain states of the mind may be partially repressed through the will, and in such cases the muscles which are least under the separate control of the will are the most liable still to act, causing movements which we recognize as expression. In certain other cases the checking of one habitual movement requires other slight movements; and these are also expressive. It is these expressive movements that provide the examiner with the best source of information regarding a subject's emotional state at the time of the test.

other observers have suggested that an overflow of nerve-force, undirected by any motive, will manifestly take the most habitual routes; and, if these do not suffice, will next overflow into the less habitual ones. Consequently the facial and respiratory muscles, which are the most used, will be apt to be first brought into action; then those of the upper extremities, next those of the lower extremities, and finally those of the whole body.

We have seen that frowning is a natural expression when some difficulty is encountered, or of something disagreeable experienced either in thought or action, and he whose mind is often and readily affected in this way, will be apt to be ill-tempered, slightly angry, or peevish; and will com­monly show it by frowning.

A firmly closed mouth in addition to a lowered and frowning brow, gives determination to the expression, or may make it obstinate and sullen. There is also a tendency to the protusion of the lips with the adults of all races under the influence of rage.

The eyes are also said to be a true indicator of what goes on inside of us. Anger brings on eyes full of fire which can stare holes through an advisary. But eyes which are bright and cheerful, clear and steady, re­veal an appearance of earnest reflection.

Under the emotion of rage we have learned that the action of the heart is much accelerated, or much disturbed. The face reddens, or becomes purple from the impeded return of blood, or may turn deadly ·pale. The respiration is laboured, the chest heaves, and the dialated nostrils quiver.

392 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

The whole body often trembles, the voice is affected. The teeth are clenched or ground together, and the muscular system is commonly stimulated to violent, almost frantic action. The actions of this man represents more or less plainly the behavior involved in striking or fighting with an enemy.

Although a man, when moderately angry, may command the movements of his body and may not exhibit any outward signs to reveal this emotion, he assuredly does not appear" cheerful or good-tempered. The examiner may recognize this attitude in a person before the test by the greeting he gives, by the way he hangs up his coat, or by the way he sits in the chair.

One of the easiest safeguards to use is to ask the subject how he feels about taking the polygraph test. This provides an outlet for the subject to vent his anger or make an answer which will alert the examiner to this possibility. In most cases the subject quickly takes this opportunity to let the examiner know exactly how he feels about taking the test.

The examiner can also provide himself with valuable information about the subject's temperment by discussion with investigators who have in­terrogated the subject. The examiner should also discuss with the investi­gators the subject's behavior during the course of this investigation.

The examiner must not become angry at the subject. Any instability on the part of the examiner may cloud his mind and cause him to make an error.

The best safeguard against anger is to search for its existence prior to or during your polygraph test. If you are forewarned about the pos­sibility of anger, or detect it during your test, you may be wise to re­schedule the test for another time.

In closing I might say that anger can certainly pose a problem in those rare instances where it can be misinterpreted as fear. However, if an examiner follows established safeguards, assesses the subject's be­havior, and looks for not only anger but all factors that affect the subject's test, the validity and reliability of his test will be assured.

SOURCES CITED

Arnold, Magda. "An Excitatory Theory of Emotion." In: Reymert, M.L.Ced): Feelings ~ Emotions. New York, McGraw Hill, 1950, Chapter 2.

Ax, Albert. "The Physiological Differentiation between Fear and Anger in Humans." Journal.2! Psychosomatic Medicine. Vol. XV, No.5, 1953.

Cannon, Walter B. Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear ~ r,e, 2nd ed., New York: Appleton, 1939. (Reprinted, Harper & Row, 19 3

Darwin, Charles. ~ Expression .2! ~ Emotions !!!. ~ ~ Animals. New York: Appleton & Company, 1873.

393 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Murray, Edward J. Motivation ~ Emotion, 1964.

Richardson, Ray Franklin. "The Psychology and Pedagogy of Anger." Educational Psychology Monographs, Warwick, and York, 1918.

******

KEELER BOO K S

The Keeler Training Guide is now available to all examiners.

This guide to the Keeler Institute course was previously available only

to graduates of the course. The book is published in hard cover, mailed

postpaid, at $12.00.

Also available from the Keeler Institute is an excellent reference

work entitled Expert Testimonv !2£ Polygraph Examiners. This book include

the testimony of the case of U.S. ~. Zeiger plus the opinion of Judge

Barrington T. Parker, and the opinion of Judge Charles Joiner in the case

U.S. v. Ridling. The book has a hard cover, 330 pages, and sells for

$25.00, postpaid.

Send order to: Leonarde Keeler, Inc. 5906 North Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60646

394 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

THE POLYGRAPH AND THE CRIMINAL LAW: AN OVERVIEW

By

Philip P. Durand

Laying a Proper Foundation for Admission

From United states ~. Ridling, 350 F. Supp. 90 (D.C. Mich. 1972):

The basic theory of the polygraph.

The reliance on the polygraph by government agencies.

The reliance on the polygraph by private industries.

[But see state v. Community Distributors, Inc., 317 A2d 697.

Use of lie detectors to screen employees, N.J.S.Ct. upheld validity of statute making an employer guilty of disorderly conduct if it influences, requests, or requires an employee to take a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. Statute challenged as denying employer due process of law.]

The comparative reliability of the polygraph and other scientific evidence such as fingerprint and ballistic evidence.

The opinions of the experts as to whether polygraph evidence would be a valuable aid in connection with the determination of the issues such as the one facing the court in [the] case and in the administration of justice.

There should undoubtedly also be evidence concerning the qualifications of the expert administering the test, education, training, trial experience, and standards of American Polygraph Association and compliance therewith. In compliance with the requirements of recent cases on stipulated tests [State v. Stanislawski, 216 NW2d 8, State v. Valdez, 371 P2d 894, State v. Ross, 497 P2d 1343J in addition to qualifications, evidence is required ror-demonstration of the conditions under which the test was administered for purposes of exercise of judicial discretion.

Research

An examination of listed cases will lead the researcher to complete expositions of the history of polygraph law, divisions in application of the law, and numerous references to bibliographical materials, law review notes and comments, etc.

Philip P. Durand is President-Elect of the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The material in this article was originally pre­sented at the TACDL session on the Polygraph in Criminal Law held August 16, 1974 in Knoxville.

395 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

PROPER fOUNDAlI0~ See separate sheet

THE BASIC CASE

Frye v. U.S., 293 F2d 1013 (1923)

NO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

U.S. v. Frogge (CAS, 4/11/73) 13 CLR 2112 Romero v. State, 493 SW2d 206 (Tex. Cr. App. Ct. 1973) Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440,

374 SW2d 391 (1963) Clark v. State, 218 Tenn. 259,

402 SW2d 863

TOO MANY VARIABLES BURDEN ON CT.

~o

U.S. v. Urquidez, 356 F.Supp.1363, 13 CLR 1251 (C.D.Ca1. 1973)

AN AID, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT ACCEP­TANCE IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

Bowen v. E~an, 324 F.Supp. 339 (D.C. ArlZ. 1970)

PROBABLE UNCRITICAL JURY RELIA~

People v. Leone, 25 NY2d 511, 255 NE2d 696 (1969)

People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348, 372, 72 NW2 d 2 6 9, 2 82 ( 19 5 5 )

EVIDENCE OF REFUSAL TO TAKE TE~

Marabe11e v. State, 203 Tenn. 4 455 et seq., 313 SW2d 451 (IS

State v. McDavitt, 297 A2d 849, (S.Ct.N.J., 1972)

WAIVERING, OR NOT PRESENTED WITH FOUNDATION

Tremont v. U.S., 351 F2d 144 (CA6, 1965) Lanza v. U.S., 356 F.Supp. 27 (M.D. Fla. 1972) U.S. v. Chastain, 435 F2d 686 (CA7, 1970)

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

YES

WHERE STIPULATION WITH PROSECUTION

I

~ No enforcement of agreement not to prosecute if results

--- favorable to def. w/o Court agreement. Neb. v. Sanche 1 , 216 NW2d 504 (1974)

Admissibility agreement enforced if stipulated.

~~ State v. McDavitt, 297 A2d 849 (1972); People v. Houser, 193 P2d 937 (1948)

" NO-stipulation doesn't make evidence more reliable -excluded. Pulakis v. State, 476 P2d 474 (Alaska 1970); Romero v. State, 493 SW2d 206 (Tex. 1973)

Admitted with conditions: State v. Stanislawski, 216 NW2d 8(1974) State v. Valdez, 371 P2d 894 (l972) State ~ Ross, 497 P2d 1343 (1972) -NOT SAY "NEVER ADMISSIBLE" BUT LOWER

ADMISSIBLE IN COURT'S DISCRETION

State v. Alderete, Ct.App.N.Mex. 15 CLR 2028 (2/27/74)

COURT-APPOINTED EXAMINERS

Ridling v. U.S., 350 F.Supp.90

COURT'S DISCRETION NOT ABUSED IN 0 m _

~E~X~C~L~U~D~I~N~G~ __________________________________ -I~ ~ ::Sl-'

U.S. v. DeBetham, 470 F2d 1367 (CA9, 1972)

I-' 100 C III CD ::s m rt

MAY BE ADMISSIBLE, BUT NO PROPER ..... _.F'IO~UN~DA~'Tw'T~·IO~N ______________________________ ~g

U.S. v. Wainwright, 413 F2d 796 (CAlO, 196 9 )

U.S. v. Tremont, 351 F2d 144 (CA6, 1965). Nothing offered to upset judicial distrust but no rexamination of traditional rules "in a case thus presented". (no foundation).

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Tennessee Polygraph Cases

Marabelle v. state, 203 Tenn. 440, 455 et seq, 313 s.w. 2d 451 (1958). Prosecution had introduced evidence that defendant had been asked to take a lie detector test and had, after consulting with counsel, refused to do so. Another witness stated under direct examination that the test had been refused, but no objection to the statement was made at that time. At a later stage, counsel moved to strike all the testimony relative to defendant's refusal to submit to the test, it was struck and the jury was so instructed. The Court (page 456) states "The unquestioned and unanimous weight of au­thority and the general rule is that the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible in evidence. See Annotation in 23 A.L.R. 2d, 1306, where cases in many states are digested." On appeal, it was argued that the im­pact of the refusal to take the test might affect the jurors' min9,S to such an extent as to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court discussed the well-recognized principal of criminal law that the actions and behavior of an accused when charged or confronted, etc. are particularly relevant, and noted that there was a very find, if any, technical legal dif­ference between admission of all these things which are recognized uni­versally as admissible, and admitting the fact that the person refused to take a lie detector test. The court did not decide on this point, since the counsel had gone into the matter in some detail during the trial. An argument was made on an appeal by defendant that evidence of the lie de­tector proposition was in violation of constitutional privilege not to be compelled to give evidence against herself.

Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W. 2d 391, (1963). During course of trial defendant offered to introduce evidence in regard to a polygraph test he had taken. Upon objection by the state to this evidence, the Judge excluded the same, but did allow for the record certain questions and ans­wers of the defendant in regard to the circumstances surrounding taking of the test. The Court, citing Marabelle held that results of the polygraph test are inadmissible, and this would include the circumstances surrounding taking or not taking of such a test by the defendant, and proceeded to de­cide the case as if the polygraph evidence was not in the record. Dyer wrote the decision. No discussion.

Marabelle and Grant were noted in Clark v. State, 218 Tenn. 259, 270, on the question of whether paraffin tests are admissible in evidence, using it as analogy.

Weston v. Henderson, 279 F.Supp. 862 (E.D. Tenn.). The fact that a defendant confesses to other crimes while taking a polygraph test does not render the confession involuntary or inadmissible. (Vac. on other grounds, 415 F.2d 343). U.s. v. McDevitt, is quoted, 328 F.2d 282 (C.A.6, 1964), setting forth the "principal" of non-admissibility of test results without being directly presented with the question of the examiner's evi­dence being tendered. The Court in McDevitt noted that (at that time) there were only a few reported cases.

other Cases

In U.S. v. Zieger, 350 F.Supp. 685, 12 C.L.R. 2057, D.C. Washington, D.C.-Court held polygraph testing emerged from scientific twilight zone. Reversed on appeal without opinion: 475 F.2d. 1280.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

State v. McDavitt, (N.J. S.Ct) 297 A.2d 849 (1972), 12 C.L.R. 2344. Defendant agreed to take polygraph test and admit results. He failed and moved to exclude test results. Motion denied. On appeal, held that poly­graph testing has been developed to such point of reliability that in a criminal case when State and defendant enter into a stipulation to have defendant submit to a polygraph test and have the results introduced as evidence, such stipulation should be given effect, despite no vel non review of existing general rule of non-admissibility owing to fact Of scientific non-acceptance.

State v. Alderete, Ct. of App. for New Mexico, 15 C.L.R., 2028, 2-27-74 - tests now admissible at trial court's discretion. "However, a proper foundation for the testimony must be established; the polygraphist must be qualified as an examiner, the test he uses must be one accepted by his profession, and it must reasonably be precise." Chief Judge Wood con­curring, agrees polygraph tests should be admissible but believes that admissibility should be determined by the same "probative value" tests that applies to other scientific evidence. Judge Lopez (concurring) be­lieves that polygraph test is potentially of great value to the judicial process. Judge Woods stated that tests now accepted as scientific prin­ciple appears to be in answer to ~.

State v. Stanislawski, 216 N.W.2d. 8 (S.Ct.Wis.1974) 15 C.L.R. 2093. Results of polygraph tests administered pursuant to defense or prosecution on stipulation are now admissible for corroboration or impeachment pur­poses in criminal trials. Judge need only be satisfied that the expert who administers the test is qualified and that the test is given under pro­per conditions. Teenage rape suspect passed same polygraph test as coed accuser flunked. The Court said he may be able to get the results into his retrial, although the grounds for reversal rest on prosecution's fai­lure to disclose other highly exculpatory evidence. The court in its opinion said "We find it clear that during the same 40 or 50 years, (since ~) polygraph tests have moved from the "twilight zone" of ~ to such degree of standing and scientific recognition that unconditional rejection of expert testimony based on polygraph testing is no longer indicated." The court set certain standards for admission noting that polygraph evi­dence in criminal cases has been admitted (1) only for impeachment or corroberation on the question of credibility, (2) whether there is a sti­pulation of prosecutor and defense counsel in consent of the party involved and (3) the trial court retaining the right to reject the offered testimony if not convinced that the examiner is not qualified and that the test was conducted under proper conditions, adopting the Valdez criteria: State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P. 2d 894 (1972). Valdez qualifications also adopted in State v. Ross, 7 Wash. App. 62, 497 P.2d 1343 (1972).

For an exhaustive Agreement or Stipulation reflecting warnings, i.e., right to silence and waiver of constitutional rights, see Ftn. #1 in Ross.

u.S. v. Frogge, C.A. 4, April ll, 1973, affirmed conviction of 2 federal defendants of attempted escape and assault on Deputy Marshalls. Fifth Circuit found no error in trial court's refusal to authorize poly­graphic examinations. Defendants maintain their escape from Marshalls by means of bribe offers rather than blows. "The trend may be emerging toward loosing the restrictions on polygraph evidence ••• the rule is

399 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

well established in federal criminal cases that the results of lie de­tector tests are inadmissible ••• Nothing in U.S. v. Ridling, 350 F. Supp. 90 (D.C.Mich.1972) ••• heavily relied upon by the appellants, persuades us to abandon a traditional view. 13 C.L.R. 2112.

U.S. v. Urquidez, 356 F. Supp. 1363 (C.D.Cal.1973), 13 C.L.R. 1251, Exhaustive review of polygraph's functioning convinces federal court there are too many variables to allow it to be used as evidence, and that the burden on the courts in terms of time required to order and explore and seek to adjudge the factors would place too heavy a burden on the admin­istration of justice.

Romero v. State, 493 S.W. 2d 206 (Ct.C.App.Tex.1973), 12 C.L.R. 2152, after exhaustive examination of both sides of polygraph debate decided it should adhere to general rule of exclusion, and does not think that the result should be admitted even where there is a stipulation for admission.

The court gives a good discussion of cases on both sides of the ques­tion of admissibility, both with and without stipulation.

Constitutional law - Use of lie detectors to screen employees. The New Jersey Supreme Court has upheld that the validity of a statute making an employer guilty of disorderly conduct if it influences, requests, or requires an employee to take a lie detector test as a condition of employ­ment or continued employment. The statute was challenged as to denying the employer due process of law. State v. Community Distributors, Inc., 317 A.2d. 697.

Supreme Court of Massachusetts, by a majority, after review of progress of polygraph art since 1963, holds that polygraph results may be admitted under certain conditions with stringent limitations on the use of the evi­dence, because polygraphy has not achieved general acceptance of scientific community. The court adopted a middle role. Where defendant agrees in advance to the admissibility of the test results, the trial court may admit polygraph evidence after making a thorough check into the examiner's cre­dentials. Defendant's whose tests prove unfavorable can cross-examine the examiner. Under the Fifth Amendment, defendant cannot be forced to take a lie detector test. Dissent by three Judges finds advances in poly­graphy insufficient to warrant a change in existing rule. Too much depends on the examiner himself and statistics indicate that many examiners are unqualified. One Justice fears that the jury may abrogate its roles as fact finder because of blind faith in technology. Commonwealth v. A. Juvenile, 15 C.L.R. 2323. Decision June 12, 1974.

Legal BibliographY

An excellent bibliography by Gordon H. Barland on the legal aspects of the polygraph appears in Polygraph 1:1, March 1972, and again in Zimmerman, Charles, ~ Polygraph ~ Court, Auburndale, Mass., BHF Printing Co., 1972.

******

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

POLYGRAPH AS A POLICE PRE-lOO'LOYMENT SELECTION TOOL

By

Michael F. Barton

Introduction

Selection of personnel is the most important problem of police officials today. When police departments add personnel, the polygraph allows a better and closer look at the individual than any other method known at this time. It gives an indication of one of the finest requisites of a police officer, which is honesty.

Survey of Five Departments

This paper is an attempt to evaluate the current practices of police departments in their use of the polygraph in the total screening selection process. Five departments were selected as the sample. Each was asked thirteen questions covering the topic (See Appendix A). After analyzing the data, the second goal was to set up a model for personnel adminis­trators to use. The model includes when, where and how the polygraph should be used within the existing framework of the total selection pro­cess. The last goal is not completely original work, but rather a pro­cess of selecting different opinions and placing them into some workable order.

History

Lie detection is not a new phenomenon. There have always been attempts by investigators to prove the truthfulness of witnesses, defendants, etc. In the early forms, detection was trial by combat, pain or physical ap­pearance. l None of the methods were error free but then nothing ever is. The assumption behind the use of such measures was that fear of detection would cause the guilty party to make some overt act and in so doing show his guilt. The earliest known scientific method was in 250 B.C. Erasis­tratus, a court physician, could predict guilt by feeling the man's pulse quicken. 2 Other methods included the use of fire or water tortures. The most arbitrary method of proving guilt was by saying the ugliest person was guilty by virtue of his appearance. These methods seem crude by todays standards but in s orne areas of the country we still use the "backroom third degree" or "sap counseling."

The first man to use an instrument in lie detection was Caesar Lombroso in 1895. He used a hydrosphygmograph, a blood pressure-pulse rate indi­cator.3 In 1917, William M. Marston used a doctor's sphygmomanometer to detect lying in bank employees. Marston claimed that he could ascertain if a person had the capacity for theft in the future. 4

From humble beginnings at the dawn of civilization, man has moved to develop what is now known as the polygraph. The 1945 model has been re­fined by Reid and Keeler. The single most important advance was the reali­zation that the polygraph was no more a lie detector than it was a truth

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

recorder and that results depend upon the questions asked and the evalua­tion by the examiner.

Legal Problems

In California the courts have ruled for the past 32 years that a police department is within its rights to require a polygraph examination in the screening process: Christal, et.al. v. Police Commission of San Francisco, 92 P.2d U6 (1939); Perez V. Los Angeles Police CommisSion, 178 P.2d 537 (1947); Steiner v. Los Angeles Police Commission, 199 P.2d 429 (1948); Pockman v. Leonard, 240 P.2d 267 (1952); appealed to Federal Court and affirmed - Lerner y. Casey, 359 u.S. 468.

There are some dozen states which have enacted legislation excluding the use of polygraph in the selection process t but the laws in most of these cases have exempted police departments.'

Polygraph as a Selection Tool

The polygraph has many advocates and as many critics. "The best background investigation ever conducted by your department can not be a substitute for a properly-conducted polygraph pre-employment exaiiiInation!,,6 "Since personnel screening is not designed to uncover a specific act, but only a tendency to act, polygraph o~erators can accomplish less and boast more in this field than any other."'! These are only two of many responses that can be found in reviewing articles on polygraphs.

Union leaders in business and spokesmen of police brotherhoods (police, unions) are against the polygraph for a variety of reasons. The feeling is that an examiner delves into many areas which are considered private; i.e., marriage, sexual tastes, union business, etc. Union sentiment can be-summarized, "no polygraph can measure a man's spirit.,,8 This is the hottest issue in union-management relations besides the "right to work" laws.

The police administrator views the examination with mixed emotions. Granted the polygraph can produce results at a cheaper cost, but is it worth the emotional problems of unions or adverse public opinion? One study, conducted by the Kalamazoo, Michigan police department in 1962, showed that the money saved on nineteen examinations amounted to $3,000. "However, it was apparent that the greatest value was the rejection of un­desirable candidates who would have been hired if the polygraph was not used."9 If one was to consider cost only there would be no doubt that the polygraph should be used, but realistically there are other considera­tions.

Some of the other considerations an administrator should consider are morale, examiner ability and security of information once collected, to name only a few. Morale of the department can be affected by any policy change. Richard A. Blum concluded that the polygraph examination, if properly explained, had no adverse effects on morale.10 This would appear to be reasonable since an applicant is not a policeman, yet. Examiner ability is crucial to any proposed use of the polygraph in the screening process. There is a definite difference between criminal examinations and

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

police applicant tests. In a criminal investigation the goal is to est­ablish the examinee's truthfulness in his denial about a certain crime. Whereas in the applicant examination the goal is to deduce if the applicant is honest and trustworthy. The types of questions asked are radically dif­ferent. One asks of the criminal, "Did you ••• " and asks the applicant, "Have you ever ••• ". A good criminal examiner is not always the best screening examiner. A final consideration is security for the information collected. An applicant is not likely to respond truthfully if he knows his answers will become general department knowledge. There should only be two people that know the answers to any of the questions; the examiner and the personnel director.

Areas of Interest to Administrators

A polygraph examination can only last so long and include a limited number of areas. For example, the area might be medical history and the number of questions asked could be five. According to Frank Horvath, "except for very unusual circumstances, ten relevant areas of inquiry are all that is necessary for a polygraph examination to be of definite value in the selection process."ll In deciding what the relevant areas should be, an administrator must consider what he wants to know after the exami­nation. To be used effectively, the polygraph, should be a complement to and not a substitute for other types of selection devices. If answers can be provided by the use of another selection tool then there is no need to use valuable time on the polygraph with it. An example is indebtedness. During the routine background investigation a c~edit check is conducted to learn the extent of indebtedness of the applicant. The answer is un­covered without the need of a polygraph.

One of the first areas some administrators want to delve into is the applicant's sexual behavior, that which is considered immoral rather than illegal. There are four reasons why this author feels that this is not a necessary area of interest. First, questions on this subject have a "carry over" effect that can cause the results of other types of questions to be unreliable.12 Second, sexual behavior is a private matter reasonably unrelated to employment. Third, it would be better, if the information is necessary, to allow a psychiatrist or medical doctor ask questions in this area, since the examiner is not qualified to evaluate the answers. Fourth, if an applicant has sexual deviancy serious enough to disqualify him from employment, then it will appear in other disqualifying character defects clearly related to the police task.13

Other areas where the polygraph would be wasted are personal, social, medical histories; military record; arrest record; employment history and financial responsibility. Everyone of these areas can and should be in­vestigated by the background study. If a man was to lie in any one of these areas he should be disqualified by virtue of falsification of his applica­tion forms.

Honesty is more important than any other character trait or physical ability. The President's Task Force Report said that,

• ethical standards and a high degree of honesty are perhaps more essential for police than for any other group

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

in society. Dishonesty within a police agency, can, almost overnight, destroy respect and trust that has built up over a period of years by honest local government and police officials. Nothing undermines public confidence in the police more than the illegal acts of officers.14

This is the area for which an administrator should hold his examiner res­ponsible:--The best prediction of future behavior is anaylsis of past behavior.

Results of Survey

The agencies contacted during the survey were Houston Municipal Police Department, Huntsville Municipal Police Department, Harris County Sheriff's Office, Texas Department of Public Safety and Sam Houston State University's Campus Police Department. Those using the polygraph in their pre-employment screening process were the Houston Police Department and Sam Houston State University's Campus Police Department. Huntsville Police Department's spokes­man stated that the costs were prohibitive and since the size of the force was rather small there "wasn't much need." Harris County Sheriff's Office listed as reasons for not using the polygraph: 1) "Not reliable enough"; 2) "costs too d--d much"; 3) "would stop applications from coming in" and 4) "Aren't those used on criminals? Our men are looked at 'pretty' close anyway." The Texas Department of Public Safety said that their back­ground investigation was so thorough that the polygraph wasn't needed.

The two agencies using the polygraph were asked thirteen questions. Some of the questions were similar to questions asked in a proposed survey by Dr. Merlyn D. Moore.15 The questions asked are listed in Appendix A and the responses are listed in Appendix B.

Model

The examination should be given after the more traditional methods (records check, psychological testing, physical examination, bacf~round investigation, etc.) have provided all the information possible. The examiner must know the applicant's physical and educational background before he can formulate the questions properly. The reasoning here is that if an applicant has only a high school education the questions should be geared to his level of knowledge.

A pre-examination interview is the time during which the examiner asks general questions in many areas. This interview is similar to the original persornel interview except that the applicant is more likely to be truthful due to the nature of the forthcoming examination.l ? It is from this in­terview and the policy of the department, concerning specific areas of inquiry, that the test questions are decided upon.

After the interview a short break should be given the applicant. By now the applicant is very nervous. A polygraph examination is something like having the boss call you on the phone and saying "come in here, there is something I need to discuss with you". Your mind runs at a fever pitch trying to think of what you did wrong, even if you haven't done anything, you are scared. This break allows the applicant time to reflect, relax and realize that being emotinal is of no benefit.

404 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

The first test session should begin with the examiner reading the questions about to be asked the applicant. "The applicant's test will be fitted to his story of his life as no ambiguous test could be. He is told 'this is your life and if you miss on this examination, it is your fault as questions are based on your side of the story. ,,,18 Now the attachments are made (blood pressure cuff, pneumograph, hand electrode). The examination is given and should last no more than five minutes. All questions are "Yes" or "No". After the test, any reaction is discussed and time allowed for an explanation.

Another break follows the first test for much the same reasons as the first break. Then a second chart is run. The questions for the second chart may be different, but can include questions in areas where reactions appeared in the first test. The APA Principles of Practice require two charts in all cases (including screening).

After the examination is completed the applicant is sent hone. There should be no other testing or meetings the applicant need go to because the polygraph examination may have emotionally drained the individual.

In regard to the evaluation of the charts, time should be allowed for the examiner to complete his report as soon as the examination is over so that the test will be fresh in his mind.

The last and possibly most important phase, as far as the applicant is concerned, is data security. Since some of the information gathered during the polygraph examination is very personal, only those people who have both the right and need to know should see the actual results. A tight security procedure must be used. No name should appear on the ques­tions asked, the polygraph charts or the report to the administration, only a number. Each agency can set up its own system of assigning numbers but this will ensure that the information remains confidential.

Recommendations

1. A firm policy should be instituted on which specific areas of inquiry are-tO be investigated by the polygraph examiner. This policy must be consistent in that every applicant is treated equal. With this approach, no minority group can claim discrimination on the part of the examiner.

2. Require that each examiner have prior training or experience in the field of employment screening.

3. Examiner qualifications be of the highest caliber possible. Each agency can decide for itself on the education, training, certification and internship requirements needed to fill the position of examiner. However, these must meet licensing requirements and should meet APA requirements for examiners and school certification.

4. A system of security that insures no leaks of confidential information.

5. If the agency claims that the examination is voluntary, then have an alternate but suitable system whereby honesty can be proven. The use of the word "voluntary" when an agency means "mandatorY" is a mis­representation.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

6. Advise the applicant that the polygraph is only one of numerous devices used in the screening process. Explain the "Whole Man" con­cept, if the agency uses it and how much weight each tool is given when deciding on the applicant's fitness to serve.

7. Be sure the applicant fully understands the instrument before it is attached.

B. Don't rely on the polygraph as THE answer to personnel selection, but as one part of the whole procesS:-

Conclusion

The police administrator should require that the polygraph be used to explore those areas of an applicant's history which cannot be :Lnvesti­gated by more traditional methods. These are the areas which are most important to police image and success. All applicants have the right to be free from unnecessary "snooping" in their personal lives but the public has the right to require honesty of its policemen.

This is the place where the balance must be struck. Fairness to both groups can be insured by the adoption of a policy which holds the rights of each as equal.

****** FOOTNOTES

~arson, John A. Lying ~ Its Detection: ! Study E!. Deception ~ Deception and Deception Tests. Patterson Smith, Inc.: Montclair; New Jersey, 1969, pp. 66-71.

2"Use of Polygraph as 'Lie Detectors' by the Federal Government," ~ Report ~~ Committee on Government ~erations, United States House of Representatives-rMarch 22, 19 5), p. s.

3 Inbau, Fred and Reid, John. Lie Detection ~ Criminal Investigation, 3rd ed. -The Williams and Wilkins Co.: Baltimore, 1953, p. 2.

~arston, William Moulton. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith Pub.: New York, 193B, p. 107.------

5poling , James. "Invasion by Lie Detector," Reader's Digest, May 1966, p. 113.

6Arthur , Richard O. "How Many Robbers, Burglars, Sex Criminals is Your Department Hiring This Year", Law and Order, Vol. 20, No.6, June 1972, p. B6. ------

7Meisler, Stanley. September 2B,

Sy ounger, Irving.

"Lie Detectors: Trial by Gadget," Nation, Vol. 159, 1964, p. 162.

Truth ~ Deception. (book review), Saturday Review,

. ,.../ Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Vol. 49, Ft. 4, December 31, 1966, p. 21.

9Fox, Dean A. "Screening Police Applicants," Polygraph, Vol. 1, No.2, June 1972, p. 80.

10Blum, Richard A. "The Polygraph Examination in Law Enforcement Per­sonnel Selection," Police, Vol. 12, No.2, November-December 1967, pp. 60-75.

llHorvath, Frank. "The Police Candidate Polygraph Examination: Consider­ations for the Police Administrator," Police, Vol. 16, No. 10, June 1972, p. 34.

l2Inbau and Reid., p. 17-18.

l3Arther, Richard 0. "Polygraph Picks Potential Policemen," Journal .2!. Polygraph Studies, Vol. 2, No.2, September and November 1967, p. 2.

l~ask Force Report: ~ Police. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Washington, United States Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 208.

l5Moore, Merlyn D. "The Use of the Polygraph as a Pre-Employment Screening Device for Police Applicants in Personnel Selection," (unpublished position paper), Michigan State University, p. 4-5.

16 Blum, p. 69.

l7Gugas , Chris. "Better Policemen Through Better Screening", Police, Vol. 6, No. 6, July~ugust 1962, pp. 54-58.

lBweiner, John. "Use of the Polygragh in Selection of Personnel for Police Applicants," (unpublished paper presented to cadets of Houston Police Academy), 1970, p. 4.

IE)( IE )OE)(

Blm.IOGRAPHY

Arther, Richard 0. "Polygraph Picks Potential Policemen", The Journal of Polygraph Studies, Vol. 2 No.2, September-November 197?{:

_----:~,. "How Many Robbers, Burglar, Sex Criminals is Your Department Hiring this Year", ~ ~ Order, Vol. 20, No.6, June 1962.

Blum, Richard A. "The Polygraph Examination in Law Enforcement Personnel Selection", Police, Vol. 12 No.2, November-December, 1967.

Christal, ~. Al. y. Police Commission 2!.~ Francisco, 92 P.2d 416 (1939).

Fox, Dean A. "Screening Police Applicants," Polygraph, Vol. 1 No.2, June 1972.

Gugas, Chris. "Better Policemen Through Better Screening," Police, Vol. 6 No. 6, July~ugust 1962.

407 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Horvath, Frank. "The Police Candidate Polygraph Examination," Police, Vol. l6 No. lO, June 1972.

Houston Chronicle, October l2, 1972.

Inbau, Fred and Reid, John. Lie Detection and Criminal Investigation, 3rd ed.: The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1953.

Larson, John A. ~ and ~ Detection. Patterson Smith, Inc.: Montclair, New Jersey, I909~ (Reprint of the University of Chicago edition of 1932. )

Lerner y. Casey, 359 U.S. 468.

Marston, William Moulton. The Lie Detector Test. Richard R. Smith: -- -New York, 1938.

Meisler, Stanley. "Lie Detectors: Trial by Gadget," Nation, Vol. 199, September 28, 1964.

Moore, Merlyn D. "The Use of the Polygraph as a Pre-Employment Screening Device for Police Applicants in Personnel Selection," (unpublished position paper), Michigan State University, 1969.

Municipal Police Administration in Texas: Affairs. University of Texas Press:

!. Survey. Institute of Public Austin, Texas, 1960.

Perez y. ~Angeles Police Commission, l78 P. 2d 537 (l947).

Pockman y. Leonard, 240 P. 2d 267 (l952).

Poling, James. "Invasion by Lie Detector," Reader's Digest, May 1966.

Steiner y. ~Angeles Police Commission, 199 P. 2d 429 (l948).

Task Force Report: ~ Police. The President's Commission on Law En­forcement and Administration of Justice, Washington, United States Government Printing Office, 1967.

"Use of Polygraph as 'Lie Detector' by the Federal Government," loth Report by the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, (March 22, 1965).

Weiner, John. "Use of the Polygraph in Selection of Personnel for Police Applicants," (unpublished paper presented to cadets of Houston Police Academy) 1970.

Younger, Irving. Truth and Deception. (book review) Saturday Review, Vol. 49 pt. 4, Deceiiibe"r 3l, 1966.

IOOE)()( )(

1.08 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

APPENDIX A & B

Questions Asked the Several Agencies

Answers: A - Agency: Houston Municipal Police Department

Spokesman: Capt. Higgins, Direct. HPD Academy

B - Agency: Sam Houston State University's Campus Police

Spokesman: Chief

1. Do you use a polygraph examination as a pre-employment screening device? If so, why?

A. "Yes". "We use it to verify information already received. We complete all other checks and that way there are no surprises' at all."

B. "Yes". "It is a reliable instrument, reduces costs and most importantly gives information that can't be gotten any place else."

2. Are these examinations administered by in-house examiners or civilians? On what do you base the decision?

A. "In-house only." "Jonnie Weiner is our operator."

B. "Outside the department." "Our operator is a police polygraph operator from the Fort Worth PD."

3. At what time, during the pre-employment selection, is the examination given?

A. "The last thing, before the oral review board."

B. "After all tests and background checks, just prior to the oral review board."

4. What weight is given to the conclusions drawn by the examination?

A. "Individual judgement on the part of the selection committee."

B. "Considerable, but the 'Whole Man' concept is applied."

5. Are the examinations "voluntary"?

A. "No."

B. "Yes." "The man must take one to be considered for the position."

6. Does the applicant have recourse to a personnel review board to answer questions raised by the examination if unfavorable data is collected?

409 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

A. "No, the applicant agrees before hand."

B. "Recourse is to me."

7. What are the qualifications of the operator?

A. "Keeler school, Texas certification and over 20 years of experi­ence."

B. "Army school, Texas certification, college degree and 20 years experience."

8. Is there any alternate procedure if the applicant refuses the exami­nation?

A. "No."

B. "No."

9. What questions are used?

A. "Questions are made to fit each applicant. There is no standard set of questions."

B. "There is no standard set of questions, each man is questioned differently."

10. What happens to the data collected after the results are analyzed?

A. "The results are filed and kept for five years."

B. "They are kept on file in my office and NOBODY can get to them."

11. Is the applicant made to understand that the examination is only an aid and not his final adjudication?

A. "Yes."

B. "Yes, each knows completely."

12. What results, over a period of years, has your department found in regard to benefits in pre-employment screening?

A. "No idea." "We have made some mistakes but it is from personal judgement and not mechanical error."

B. "No man that passed has ever gone criminal but this is because of the whole selection process and not just the polygraph examination."

13. Are there any defects in the system that lead you to believe that the reliability of polygraph data is ineffective?

A. "No, I would like to keep the polygraph forever as it has proven it's worth to the department."

41-0 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

B. "No."

xxxxxx

APPENDIX C

Model Outline

I. Pre-test

A. Physical examination/Agility Test

B. Psychological evaluation

C. Background investigation

1. Arrest record 2. Military history 3. Employment history 4. Education 5. Neighbor check 6. Personal references

D. Financial check

II. Polygraph Examination

A. Pre-examination Interview

B. Break

C. First Examination

D. Break

E. Second Examination

III. Evaluation

******

111 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

U. S. DISTRICT COURT SUPPORTS POLICE POLYGRAPH SCREENING

SynOpSis

In William Scott Hepburn v. Joseph L. Alioto, et.al. (No. C-71-2309-OJC, November 21, 1974) the U.S. District Court heard a suit by a former San Francisco Police Cadet who refused to complete a polygraph examination, was ordered to take it, refused, and was dismissed.

In accordance with their policy, the Police Depart­ment requested the examination because of the cadet's failure to list required information on his application, in this case, an accident. The screening test, however, covered a whole range of topics, not just the accident and one other item in question. Plaintiff claimed the other examination questions invaded his right to privacy, and his termination denied him due process. Defendants (City of San Francisco, Mayor Alioto) stated that all of the questions were related to a job requiring a high standard of behavior, and that Plaintiff's overall veracity had been put in doubt by his answers on his application. The examination was con­ducted by George W. Harman, a commercial examiner.

The Court found for the defendants, concluding that "the polygraph examination is a proper method of investi­gation which does not infringe either plaintiff's right to privacy or his right to equal protection." [Ed.]

Original Filed Nov 21 1974 Clerk, U.S. Dist.Court San Francisco

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SCOTT HEPBURN,

Plaintiff, v.

JOSEPH L. ALIOTO, et ale , Defendants.

] ]

j ] ]

No. C-71-2309-OJC

MEMORANDUM FOR JUOOMENT

Plaintiff Scott Hepburn brought this civil action against the San Francisco Police Department as a result of his termination as a Police Cadet after he refused to complete a polygraph examination. Plaintiff has asked for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that the questions asked on the examination violated his right of privacy and that his termination denied him due process of law and infringed upon his right to equal protection.

li2 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

A Partial Agreed Statement of Facts was stipulated to by the parties, and the disputed issues of fact were tried before this Court on August 13, 1974.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff Hepburn was conditionally hired as a Police Cadet in May 1971. On July 16, 1971, he was ordered to take a polygraph test at the offices of George Harmon, a private polygraph operator, after a background investigation showed that he had omitted certain information in his ap­plication. Police department policy requires job applicants to take the polygraph examination either when the candidate is a recent arrival in the Bay Area or when he has misstated or neglected to mention information on his application. This group represents approximately 10% of the applicants.

Hepburn was selected for the examination for two reasons: the back­ground investigation showed that plaintiff had been involved in an automo­bile accident which he had not noted on his application, and a letter had been found written on plaintiff's behalf by his high school counselor stating that plaintiff had an inability to fire weapons at human beings.

When Hepburn arrived on July 19, 1971, at Harmon's office, Harmon began with and completed the first part of the examination. That part consisted of the examiner putting to plaintiff a long series of approximately 200 questions (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3) before the plaintiff was hooked up to the polygraph machine. During this period, plaintiff made no objection to answering the questions. Plaintiff was then attached to the machine and asked about seven questions by Harmon. At this point, Harmon wanted to con­tinue the examination, which apparently would have entailed checking out any "disturbances" he found, but plaintiff refused and said he wished to discontinue the examination. He was disconnected. Although Harmon en­couraged him, and his superior officer, Sergeant Grossward, urged him by phone to finish the examination, plaintiff insisted on ceasing the examina­tion. Harmon and plaintiff agreed, after some discussion, that plaintiff could destroy the examination papers, which he proceeded to do. Hepburn was later ordered to complete the examination by Captain Eimil but refused. He was then terminated by the Department.

Plaintiff has offered, since the inception of this suit, to take the polygraph examination at his own expense if the questions asked are rea­sonably related to the two incidents which were the catalyst for ordering the examination. This proposal has been rejected by the Police Department.

Testimony indicated that the questions asked by Harmon (Exhibit 3) are entirely of his own creation and are not made or selected by the Police Department. Neither is the area of questioning designated by the Depart­ment in cases such as plaintiff's.

From the testimony of both plaintiff and Captain Eimil, it appears that plaintiff had no real fear that any of the information obtained on the examination would be used against him. Plaintiff's main reason for ceasing the examination was his strong objection to answering questions of a very personal nature which he felt were unrelated to the job of

413 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Police Cadet or Police Officer.1I

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court must decide whether plaintiff Hepburn has a right to privacy which has been unreasonably invaded by the questions asked by polygraph examiner Harmon. The scope of the somewhat i11-defined constitutional right to privacy has been increasingly broadened in recent years, particu­larly as it relates to permissible employer investigation of an employee's sexual habits and attitudes. A number of courts have held that, if the investigation of an employee's sexual life bears no relation to the job performed -- if it has no nexus -- termination of employment based on such investigation is an unconstitutional invasion of the employee's right to privacy and a denial of due process. (See, for example, G6yef ~. SChles~er, 490 F.2d 704 (n.c. Cir. 1973); Norton v. Macy, 417 F.2d 11 1 n.c. Cir. ~9); Morrison ~. State Board £[ Education, 82 Cal. Rptr. 175 (1969)).

In the instant case, it is certainly true that Mr. Harmon's questions delved into intimate areas concerning plaintiff's sex life and attitudes. There were equally probing questions about criminal activities of every nature, drinking habits, financial status, health, and loyalty. Many of these questions could be considered potential invasions of plaintiff's right to privacy.

Part of the problem the Court faces is in assessing whether the ques­tions asked plaintiff are reasonably related to the job that plaintiff was applying for and therefore whether they were a proper incursion into his right of privacy. Plaintiff was attempting to become a Police Cadet, and if he performed satisfactorily, a police officer at age 21. Policemen are subject to a high standard of behavior, a standard requiring more than simple obedience to the law.

If ••• A member of the police force must be above susp~c~on of violation of the very laws he is sworn and empowered to enforce •••• Accordingly, the courts have long recognized that a policeman's tenure of office may be terminated for derelictions far less serious than violation of the criminal statutes governing citizens generally.If McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 (1958). -

The public demands that a candidate for the job of policeman be eminently trustworthy and that he be able to cope maturely with a wide variety of experiences. If A police officer is in a position of trust.If Puckett v. (it~ and County £[ ~ Francisco, 208 Cal. App. 2d 471, 25 Cal. Rptr. -276 19 2).

One indication of the extra burden placed upon those who become police­men is that police officers may, upon pain of termination, be required to testify in a criminal trial on matters specifically relating to their job

11 Therefore, the question of plaintiff's privilege against self-incrimina­tion is moot. Counsel, by their lack of discussion in closing argument, appeared to tacitly agree that a potential Fifth Amendment privilege was not a real issue in this case.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

(under a guarantee of immunity). Gardner:!.. Broderick, 392 u.s. 273 (1967). A history of dishonesty has been held sufficient reason by a California court to terminate a probationary policeman. Puckett, supra.

In order to ascertain whether a candidate is trustworthy and of good moral character, the San Francisco Police Department conducts a thorough background investigation. Hepburn was aware that a detailed check on his background would be done, and he submitted to that process voluntarily when he put in his application to become a Police Cadet. He testified that he did not object in principle to such an investigation.

Plaintiff's basic contention is really that, on their face, many of the questions put to him are not job-related. Plaintiff presented no proof on this point. Given the high standard of conduct and behavior ex­pected of policemen, it is logical to find such things as plaintiff's financial status, his associates, and his attitudes toward sex as subjects of investigation.

The polygraph test given to plaintiff was not given for the sole purpose of examining into the two incidents which led to the examination. Rather, it was to test plaintiff's overall veracity, which had been put in doubt, as well as being an additional method of assessing plaintiff's character. If an applicant, to the knowledge of the Department, has lied or given misleading information in two areas on his application, the ques­tion arises as to whether he has done so in other areas as well. Plaintiff's lack of veracity might also indicate moral turpitude in other facets of his personality. The polygraph test is one method of ascertaining whether there has been additional deception by the candidate.

Although many of the questions put by Harmon are undoubtedly embar­rassing and personally obnoxious to plaintiff, the Court must take into heavy consideration the fact that plaintiff is applying for a sensitive position as a member of a police department, a position which requires a high standard of behavior. The Court further considers the fact that, by applying, plaintiff himself allowed the initial intrusion into his privacy, since he knew that a background investigation would be done. After weighing all the factors, the Court concludes that the plaintiff's right to privacy has not been unreasonably invaded.

Plaintiff has made the further argument that his right to equal pro­tection has been infringed because he is one of the small minority of applicants required to take the polygraph test. Plaintiff argues that the Police Department must show an overriding or compelling interest in order to justify requiring only 10% of all job applicants to take an examination which might infringe upon their constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiff contends that equal protection requires one of two alternatives: either all or ~ of the applicants should be made to undergo the polygraph exami­nation. The Court believes, however, that the Department does have a com­pelling interest in demanding that certain, but not all, of the applicants take the examination.

In the instant case, it was due to omissions made by plaintiff that the Department asked him to take the examination. Those omissions were

415 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

indications to the Police Department that there existed a potential problem regarding plaintiff's suitability for the position of Police Cadet; that is, there was a serious doubt about his veracity.

The Department has a strong interest -- both from a professional and from a public interest point of view -- in ascertaining whether plaintiff has given the truth regarding the rest of his background, and, perhaps more importantly, whether his apparent lack of truthfulness reflects any other weaknesses in his character. One method of testing plaintiff's pos­sible lack of honesty, as well as testing for other character defects, is the polygraph examination. This examination is a method that the Police Department apparently feels is a successful way to gauge, in fairly specific terms, the character of the applicant.

The Court believes that the Department has a justifiable compelling interest in testing, by a fairly reliable method, the veracity and general character traits of: 1) persons about whom little information is available in the Bay Area; 2) persons who have lied or misled the Department. The Police Department should be able to investigate these two categories of applicants by any legitimate method, even though that method is in addition to the normal background investigation.

The Court, therefore, concludes that the polygraph examination is a proper method of investigation which does not infringe either plaintiff's right to privacy or his right to equal protection.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this Memorandum will constitute the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with F.R.Civ.P. 52.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, dismissed on the merits.

Dated: November 21, 1974.

OLIVER J. CARTER United States District Judge

******

416 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

INDEX TO THE JOURNAL OF POLYGRAPH STUDIES

July-August 1966 to July-August 1974

By

Norman Ansley

Mr. Richard O. Arther, B.S., M.A., FACP, Director of the National Training Center of Lie Detection, is the founder, Editor and Publisher of ~ Journal .2f. Polygraph Studies. This index which covers the first eight years of issues, is designed for all examiners, and employs general field terminology as well as the terms used primarily by graduates of the National Training Center of Lie Detection. Each issue of the bi­monthly journal has exactly four pages, neatly printed with charts and photographs as appropriate. Most issues deal with a single topic, but a few have more than one article. Not only has Richard O. Arther pub­lished this journal at his own expense, but he has also provided much of the excellent writing and research. Of 57 articles produced in the 8 years, Arther wrote 41. Among the 16 other experts who have contributed articles are Fred L. Hunter, George Harman, Milton A. Berman and Richard 1. Golden. Current Co-Editors of the Journal .2f. Polygraph Studies are Milton Berman and Gene Sandacz. The Research Director is Dori J. Pearl and Consultants are John Lyng and George Harman.

Subscriptions are $12.00 a year in the U.S. and $15.00 a year for air-mailed foreign subscriptions. Single copies are $2.00. Back issues are available. Additional information on subscriptions, and the sub­mission of manuscripts, should be directed to Mr. Richard O. Arther, Managing Editor, Journal .2f. Polygraph Science, 57 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019. Readers may note that beginning with the September­October issue, 1974, the title changed from Journal of Polygraph Studies to Journal .2f. Polygraph Science.

This index is arranged according to the volume number, issue number, page numbers, and year. The year is not necessary to find the article but is included to give some idea of the age of the material. By way of ex­planation, the entry:

admissibility, 8:2, 1-4, 1973

means that an article including the topic of admissibility appears in volume 8, number 2, pages 1 through 4, which was published in the year 1973. Actually, Volume 8, number 2, is the September-October 1973 issue. In using the journal, the reader will note that the volumes are actually in Roman numerals, but we have used the arabic number before the colon to indicate the volume.

This index is in five parts: author and title, topics, persons, organizations, and legal citations.

417 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Author - Title List, chronological

Arther, Richard O.

Golden, Richard I.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Berman, Milton A.

Arther, Richard o. Gardella, Stephen L.

Ferguson, Robert

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Hunter, Fred L.

Arther, Richard o. Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard o.

Arther, Richard o. Merker, Mordecai M.

Arther, Richard O.

Stephens, Elvis C.

Arther, Richard o. Art her , Richard O.

Bates, Edward B.

Arther, Richard o.

"Words Make the Profession" 1:1, 1-4

"The Closed-Eyes Polygraph Technique" 1:2, 1-4

"The American Polygraph Association" 1:2, 4 "The Polygraph's Enemies" 1:3, 1-4

"Drugs Versus the Polygraph" 1:4, 1-3

"Peak of Tension: Basic Information" 1:4, 4

"How the Combat Polygraphist Can Save Lives" 1"5, 1-4

"The Polygraphist's Oath" 1:5, 4

"Blood Pressure Rises on Crime Questions -Sometimes an Indication of Truthfulness" 1:6, 1-4

"The Polygraph Determines the Truth in Dis­puted Paternity Cases" 2:1, 1-4

"Polygraph Picks Potential Policemen" 2:2, 1-4

"An Important Advance in Polygraph Instrumen­tation" 2:3, 1-4

"How the World's Largest Drug Wholesaler Drastically Reduced Narcotic Theft" 2:4, 1-3

"Peak of Tension: Dangers" 2:5, 1-4

"The Subversive in the Police Department" 2:6, 1-4

"National Training Center's Certified Poly­graphists" 3:1, 1-4

"Re-Examinations" 3:2, 1-4

"Polygraph for the Defense" 3:3, 1-3

"Regional Professional Seminars" 3:3, 4

"The Value of Pre-Employment Polygraph Ex­aminations" 3:4, 1-3

"Mouthpiece Alert" (humorous) 3:4, 4

"Polygraph Report Wording" 3:5, 1-4

"The Emotionally low Responder" 3:6, 1-2

"Irrelevant Questions" 3: 6, 3-4

Dump, Carl, Arther, Richard & Harman, George "Your Rights When Asked to Take a Polygraph

Examination" 4:1, 1-4

Arther, Richard o. "Crime Question Wording" 4:2, 1-4

418 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Arther, Richard o. Schatkin, Sidney B.

Arther, Richard O.

Art her , Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Art her , Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

st. Clair, William C.

Arther, Richard O.

McKee, Roger A.

Skousen, W. Cleon

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Barnett, Raymond H.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard o.

Arther, Richard O.

Lord, Carl

"The Guilt Complex Question" 4:3, 1-4

"Paternity Proceedings and the Polygraph" 4:4, 1-4

"Peak of Tension: Question Formulation" 4: 5, 1-4

"Spot Responders" 4:6, 1-2

"Covering Two Crimes in one Examination" 4:6, 3-4 "Peak of Tension: Examination Procedures" 5:1, 1-4

"National Training Center's Certified Poly­graphists" 5:2, 1-4

"The Breathing Unit" 5:3, 1-4

"Breathing Analysis" 5:4, 1-4; 5:5, 1-4

"The GSR Unit" 5:6, 1-4

"The Cardio Unit" 6:1, 1-4

"State of New Jersey v. Joseph Watson: 6:2, 1-2

"Three Crucial Areas" 6:2, 3-4

"Recommended Law Enforcement Polygraph Rules" 6:3, 1-4

"The Polygraph and the Police" 6:4, 1-4

"The Homosexual, Can He Be Cured?" 6: 5, 1-4

"Why Just Homosexuals?" 6:5, 4

"How Many Robbers, Burglars, Sex Criminals is your Department Hiring This Year?" 6:6, 1-4

"The Required Polygraph Suite" 7:1, 1-4

"The Polygraph: A Narcotic Investigative Aid" 7:2, 1-4

"National Training Center's Certified Poly­graphists" 7:3, 1-4

"May Professional Polygraph Seminars" 7:4, 1-4

"Drugs, Medicine, and Alcohol-and Chart Analysis" 7:5, 1-4

"Arther's Rating Key" (humorous) 7: 5, 4

"State of New Jersey v. Lonny McDavitt" 7:6, 1-4; $:1, 1-4

"Model Polygraph Agreement and Stipulation" $:2, 1-4

"May Professional Polygraph Seminars" $:3, 1-4

"Courtroom Presentation of the Polygraphist's Opinion" $:4, 1-4

I' ("'j Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

Arther, Richard O.

"Courtroom TestimonY" 8:5, 1-4

"Crime and Peak Question Wording" 8:6, 1-4

"Periodic Polygraph Examinations" 9:1, 1-4

Topics

abdominal pneumograph recordings abortion abused subject addicts administration of police polygraph

operation admissibility

admissibility, New Jersey admissibility in New Jersey, on

stipulation admissibility opposed adrenalin aggressive character defect agreement, see stipulation air conditioning polygraph suite alcohol and chart analysis alcohol, effect of "The American Polygraph Association" amphetamines amphetamines, effect of Amytal Anahist aneroid guage anger of subject anger of truthful person to guilt

complex question answering suppression (pneumo) anti-convulsants, effect of anti-histamine s antiperspirant on hands (GSR) anti-polygraph legislation, New

York, vetoed armed robbery admission arteries arterioles Arther Background Form Arther Exploratory Examination Arther II polygraph instrument "Art her , s order of test questions" "Arther's Rating KeY" (humorous) aspirin in large doses Augusta Georgia Police Screening auto theft admission

5:3, 1-4, 1970 4:4, 1-2, 1970 3:2, 1, 1968 6:2, 4, 1971

6:3, 1-4, 1971 3:3, 1-3, 1968; 6:2, 1-3, 1971 8:2, 1-4, 1973 7:6, and 8:1, 1973

7:6, and 8:1, 1973 8:2, 1, 3, 1973 6:1, 1, 1971 3:6, 2, 1969

7:1, 4, 1972 7:5, 1-4, 1973 1:4, 2-3, 1967 1:2, 4, 1966 7:5, 3, 1973 1:4, 1-3, 1967 1:4, 2, 1967 1:4, 2, 1967 6:1, 3, 1971 3:2, 1, 3, 1968; 4:3, 3, 1969

4:3, 3, 1969 5:5, 2, 1971 1:4, 2-3, 1967 1:4, 2-3, 1967 5:6, 4, 1971

4:6, 2, 1970 6:6, 3, 1972 6:1, 2, 1971 6:1, 2, 1971 7:2, 2-4, 1972 7:2, 3, 1972 2:3, 1-4, 1967 3:6, 4, 1969 7:5, 4, 1973 1:4, 3, 1967 6:6, 4, 1972 6:6, 3, 1972

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

backgrolmd investigations 2:4, 3, 1968; 6:6, 1-4, 1972 Baseline changes (pneumo) 5:4, 3-4, 1971 behavioral symptoms 3:2, 3, 1968; 4:3, 3, 1969; 5:1, 3-4, 1970 Benadryl (anti-histamine) 1:4, 2, 1967 "bennies" 1:4, 3, 1967 block (pneumo pattern) 5:4, 1, 1971 blood pressure - see also cuff, diastolic pressure, systolic pressure,

heart. arterioles, arteries, aneroid gauge. blood pressure blood pressure blood pressure

changes 6:1, 2, 1971 cuff maximum, 88mms. 6:1, 3-4, 1971 rises and truth-

fulness book reviews breaking and entering case "Breathing Analysis" breathing pattern - normal breathing rate "The Breathing Unit" burglary admissions

caffeine, effect of California state Policeman refuse

test card test

cardio unit cases, pre-employment Certificate of Understanding charge to jury by judge chair for subject chart analysis and drugs, medicine

and alcohol chart analysis, guilt complex chart interpretation chart interpretation, blood pressure chart interpretation, GSR chart interpretation (pneumo) chart length, 4 minute maximum chest recordings, pneumograph chewing gum child molesting admission Chlortrimet on (anti-histamine) Cincinnati Police Dept. (Ohio)

screening Cleveland Police Dept. screening "Closed Eyes Polygraph Technique"

by R. I. Golden closed eyes testing cocaine, effect of Codeine coffee, effect of cold (respiratory) colored pages and peak test

1:6, 1-4, 1967 2:4, 4, 1968 7:6, and 8:1, 1973 5:4, 1-4, 1971; 5:5, 1-4, 1971 5:4, 4, 1971 5:3, 2, 1970; 5:4, 1, 3-4, 1971 5:3, 1-4, 1970 6:6, 3, 1972

1:4, 1-3, 1967

6:4, 2, 1972 3:2, 3-4, 1968; 3:5, 4, 1969; 4:6, 1, 1970; 5:1, 3-4, 1970 6:1, 1-4, 1971 2:4, 3, 1968; 3:4, 1-3, 1969 8:2, 3-4, 1973 7:6, 4, 1973; 8:1, 4, 1973 7:1, 2, 1972

7:5, 1-4, 1973 4:3, 4, 1969 4:6, 1-2, 1970 1:6, 1-4, 1967 5:6, 2-4, 1971 5:4, 1-4, 1971; 5:5, 1-4, 1971 6:1, 4, 1971 5:3, 1-4, 1970 7:5, 3, 1973 6:6, 3, 1972 1:4, 2, 1967

6:6, 3, 1972 6:6, 3, 1972

1:2, 1-4, 1966 6:1, 4, 1971 1:4, 3, 1967 1:4, 2-3, 1967 1:4, 3, 1967 5:3, 2, 1970 5:1, 3, 1970

421 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

communist anti-polygraph line complaintant, polygraph of conclusions, in report confessions, in report confessions - polygraph afterwards Confessions ~ Statements, book

review conflicting test results Contac contributing to delinquency of a

6:6, 3-4, 1972 6:3, 3, 1971 3:5, 1-4, 1969 3:5, 3, 1969 6:3, 3, 1971

2:4, 4, 1968 3:2, 1, 1968 1:4, 2, 1967

minor 6:2, 1-3, 1971 4, 1969 3, 1972 3, 1970

control questions and guilt complex 4:3, control questions, narcotics case 7:2, control question in peak of tension 4:5, control questions in peak of tension

tests 8:6, 4, 1974 control question reactions (Reid

technique) controlled breathing cough syrups, effect of countermeasures - see disassociating countermeasure - antiperspirant

1:6, 1-4, 1967 5:3, 2-3, 1970; 5:5, 4, 1971 1:4, 3, 1967

on hands 5:6, 4, 1971 course description, National Training

Center of Lie Detection 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 courtroom testimony (polygraph) 8:4, 1-4, 1974 cow-tit response (pneumo) 5:3, 2-3, 1971 "Crime and Peak Question Wording" 8:6, 1-4, 1974 crime question wording 4:2, 1-4, 1969; 8:6, 1-4, 1974 crimes, two in one examination 4:6, 3-4, 1970 cuff, blood pressure 6:1, 2, 1971 cuff pain 4:6, 1, 1970; 6:1, 4, 1971 cuff pain and breathing 5: 5, 4, 1971 cuff pressure maximum (88 mm) 5:1, 3, 1970 cuff pressure too high 8:6, 1, 1974

deep breath answerer 5:5, 2, 1971 defense counsel, use of polygraph 8:2, 1-4, 1973 Defense - use of polygraph 3:3, 1-3, 1968 Delayed pneumo reactions 5:5, 4, 1971 deliberate distortions - see distortions Deliberate irregular breathing 5:4, 2-3, 1971 Demerol (Meperadine) 1:4, 2, 1967 deodorant on hands (GSR) 5:6, 4, 1971 depressant drugs, effect of 1:4, 2-3, 1967 depressants 7:5, 1-4, 1973 diabetic subjects, precautions 7:5, 3, 1973 diacrotic notch 6:1, 1-4, 1971 dial indicator, blood pressure 6:1, 3, 1971 diastole 6:1, 1, 1971 diastolic pressure 6:1, 1, 1971 Dilantin, effect of 1:4, 2-3, 1967 Dilaudid 1:4, 2, 1967

422 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

direct examination of examiner 8:4, 1-4, 1974; 8:5, 1-4, 1974 disassociation 5:1, 4, 1970 distortions, noted in report 3:5, 3, 1969 double pneumograph recordings 5:3, 1-4, 1970 double-verification test - see card test dress of polygraph examiner 6:3, 4, 1971 Dristan 1:4, 2, 1967 drowsiness of subject 7:5, 3, 1973 drug users 6:2, 4, 1971 drugs and chart analysis 7:5, 1-4, 1973 drugs - control questions 1:4, 3, 1967 drugs, effects on polygraph 1:4, 1-3, 1967 "Drugs, Medicines, Alcohol - and

Chart Analysis" 7: 5, 1-4, 1973 drugs, normal dosage for subject 7:5, 3, 1973 drugs, unfit subject 3:2, 2, 1968 drunken subject 3:2, 2, 1968

electrodermal - see GSR electrodes, interfere with sweat

glands electrolytes - GSR emotionally charged questions Equanil erratic charts from cuff pain Everett, Washington Police Dept. error invited by defendant, poly-

graph mentioned in Court excitement of subject expert witness, polygraph eyes-closed during testing eyes closed technique

facilities for polygraph fainting false Key in peak of tension Family Court Act, State of New York fatigue, cause of re-examination fees for tests fight or flight (syndrome) Floating baseline (pneumo) forearm cuff

5:6, 2, 1971 5:6, 1, 1971 4:2, 1-4, 1969 1:4, 2, 1967 6:1, 4, 1971 6:6, 4, 1972

7:6 and 8:1, 1973 7:5, 3, 1973 8:4, 1-4, 1974; 8:5, 1-4, 1974 1:2, 1-4, 1966 1:2, 1-4, 1966

7:1, 1-4, 1972 5:5, 102, 1971 4:5, 3, 1970 4:4, 2-4, 1970 3:2, 2, 1968 9:1, 3, 1974 6:1, 1, 1971 5:4, 2-3, 1971 6:1, 2, 1971

5:6, 1-4, 1971 galvanic skin resistance gestures - see pre-test gestures. gestures, by examiner glossary of polygraph terms "goof balls" (barbiturates)

see also behavioral symptoms 4:5, 3, 1970; 5:1, 1, 1970 1:1, 1-4, 1966

GSR conditioning GSR, no reactions and drugs GSR, palm attachment GSR in pre-emplqyment tests GSR reactions and tranquilizers

1:4, 2, 1967 5:6, 2, 1971 7:5, 2-3, 1973 2:3, 4, 1967 5:6, 2, 1971 7:5, 2, 1973

423 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

GSR - self centering and free mode compared

GSR validity estimate guilt complex personality "The Guilt Complex Question" guilt complex question placement guilt complex questions guilty knowledge guilty knowledge (peak of tension)

5:6, 4, 1971 5:6, 1, 1971 4:3, 1, 1969 4:3, 1-4, 1969 3:6, 4, 1969; 4:3, 4, 1969 4:3, 1-4, 1969; 4:6, 1, 1970 2:5, 1-4, 1965 1:4, 4, 1967; 2:5, 1-4, 1965; 4:5, 1-4, 1970; 5:1, 1-4, 1970

hay fever 5:3, 2, 1970 hay fever, re-examination 3:2, 2, 1965 heart 6:1, 1-4, 1971 heart attack 5: 5, 2, 1971 heart conditions, subjects with 7: 5, 3-4, 1973 heart problems, unfit subjects 1:4, 3, 1967 heart condition, unfit subject 6:3, 2, 1971 heart rate 6:1, 1, 1971 heart rate in pneumo pattern 5:5, 1, 1971 heroin 1:4, 2, 1967 homosexual admissions, police candidates 6:6, 3, 1972 "The Homosexual - Can He Be Cured?" 6:5, 1-4, 1972 homosexuals and polygraph in therapy 6:5, 1-4, 1972 "How Many Robbers, Burglars, Sex

Criminals is your Department Hiring this Year?" 6:6, 1-4, 1972

humour 3:4, 4, 1969 humour about examiners 7:5, 4, 1973 Hycodan 1:4, 2, 1967 gypnosis ~ Criminal Investigation

book review 2:4, 4, 1965 high blood pressure 4:1, 1, 1969 History - polygraph screening See - Arther, R. O. "The Polygraph's

Enemies", 1:3, 4, 1966

inflation of cuff 6:1, 2, 1971 informants polygraphed 7:3, 1-4, 1972 invasion of privacy 4:1, 3, 1969 instructions to jury by Judge 7:6, 4, 1973; S:l, 4, 1973 instrument not flush mounted 7:1, 2, 1972 instruments, polygraph - see polygraph insubordination, not taking test 6:4, 1-4, 1972 insulin 7:5, 3, 1973 Intelligence - combat. Use of

polygraph 1:5, 1-4, 1967 International Bureau of Investigation7:1, 4, 1972 interrogation of narcotic suspects 7:2, 2-4, 1972 investigation - relationship to

polygraph 6:3, 1-4, 1971 invest ogators, instructions to 6:3, 1-4, 1971 irrelevant questions 3:6, 3-4, 1969 Judge's charge to jury on polygraph 7:6, 4, 1973; S:l, 4, 1973

424 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

I r----'

judicial defiance of evidence juries and polygraph evidence juvenile, consent

Knowledge question Known-lie questions, narcotics case Known lie test Known solution peak

LaGrange (Ill.) Police Dept. screening

last resort tests legal rights of examinee legs crossed during test liar and guilt complex question Librium lighting varied during test listening response Lower Merion, Pa. Police Dept.

screening LSD lying, 40% of subjects

maps and peak of tension Marijuana Marine Corps, polygraph program Maryland State Police - Pre-

4:4, 4, 1970 8:4, 1-4, 1974; 8:5, 1-4, 1974 6:3, 2, 1971

8:6, 3, 1974 7:2, 3, 1972 3:2, 4, 1968 8:6, 3-4, 1974

6:6, 3, 1972 6:3, 1-4, 1971 4:1, 1-4, 1969 5:3, 4, 1970 4:3, 4, 1969 1:4, 2, 1967 7:1, 3, 1972 5:5, 2, 1971

6:6, 3, 1972 1:4, 2, 1967 6:3, 3, 1971

5:1, 3, 1970 1:4, 2, 1967 1:5, 104, 1967

employment screening 1:3, 4, 1966 1-4, 1973 1-4, 1973 2, 1967 2, 1967 2-3, 1967 4, 1971 2, 1967 4, 1972 4, 1972 4, 1968

"May Professional Polygraph Seminars"8:3, medicine and chart analysis 7:5, Meperadine (Demerol) 1:4, Meprobromatel:4, Mes ant oin (anti-convulsant) 1: 4., militant, handling one 6:2, Milt own 1:4, Miranda rights for policemen 6:4, mirror, polygraph suite 7:1, mixed question test 3:2, "Model Polygraph Agreement and

Stipulation" morphine

narcotic investigations narcotic thefts narcotics planted on innocent sus­

pects

8:2, 1-4, 1973 1:4, 2, 1967

7:2, 1-4, 1972 2:4, 1-3, 1968

6:6, 3, 1972 1:4, 3, 1967 nasal spray inhalers

"National Training Center's Certified Polygraphists"

Negligence law suit, admissibility New Jersey - admissibility New Jersey State Police examiner

testifies

3:1, 1-4, 1968 3:3, 3, 1968 6:2, 1-3, 1971

8:1, 3-4, 1973

425 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

New Orleans policeman refuses test 6:4, 104, 1972 New York Times "The Truth About

Lie Detectors in Business" October 29, 1972 8:1, 4, 1973

Nembutal 1:4, 2, 1967 nervous subject 3:2, 3, 1968; 4:1, 1, 1969 New York Bar Association report 3:3, 1-2, 1968 No~oz, effect of 1:4, 1-3, 1967 non-reactor, see unresponsive subject norm questions - see irrelevant Nytol 1:4, 2, 1967

oath, professional obese subjects breathe fast obesity and breathing rate observation room observation room use opium order of questions, Arther test order to take a polygraph test,

police

pain, blood pressure cuff Pantopon (narcotic) Parnate, effect of parole supervision with polygraph paternity cases "Paternity Proceedings and the

Polygraph" Pathometer peak of tension test answers "Peak of Tension Dangers" peak of tension, multiple reactions "Peak of Tension: Question Formula-

tion" peak of tension questions peak of tension test errors "Peak of Tension - examination

1:5, 4, 1967 5:3, 2, 1970 5:3, 2, 1970; 5:4, 1, 1971 7:1, 4, 1972 5:1, 3, 1970 1:4, 2, 1967 3:6, 4, 1969

6:4, 1-4, 1972

6:1, 3-4, 1971 1:4, 2, 1967 1:4, 1-3, 1967 6:5, 4, 1972 2:1, 1-4, 1967; 4:4, 1-4, 1970

4:4, 1-4, 1970 3:3, 1, 3, 1968; 6:2, 2, 1971 5:1, 4, 1970 2:5, 1-4, 1968 2:5, 3, 1968

4:5, 1-4, 1970 8:6, 2-4, 1974 2:5, 1-4, 1968

5:1, 1-4, 1970 procedures" peak of tension test, known solution 2:5, 1-4, 1968; 4:5, 1-4, 1970; 5:1, 1-4,

peak of tension test, searching

peak of tension use

peak of tension tests pen balance pen tip pressure "Periodic Polygraph Examinations" perjury admissions in paternity

cases persons not to be tested perspiration - see GSR

1970 2:5, 1-4, 1968; 4:5, 1-4, 1970; 5:1, 1-4, 1970 3:2, 4, 1968; 3:5, 4, 1969; 5:1, 1-4, 1970 2:5, 1-4, 1968; 8:6, 2-4, 1974 6:1, 2, 1971 6:1, 2, 1971 9:1, 1-4, 1974

2:1, 1-2, 1967 6:3, 1-2, 1971

426 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

perspiration build up under electrode

Phenergan (anti-histarnine) Phenobarbital Physicians ~ Reference pilomotor response (hair) plethysmograph recording pneumograph pneumograph-double, research pneumograph reactions pneumograph to be explanation pneumograph to be placement pneumograph tube positions pneumograph tube size "Polygraph for the Defense" "The Polygraph: A Narcotic

5:6, 2, 1971 1:4, 2, 1967 1:4, 2, 1967 7:5, 3, 1973 5:6, 1, 1971 6:1, 2, 1971 5:3, 1-4, 1970; 5:4, 1-4, 1971 5:3, 1, 1970 5:3, 4, 1970; 5:4, 1-4, 1971 5:3, 3, 1970; 5:5, 4, 1971 5:3, 3, 1970 5:3, 1-4, 1970 5:3, 2-3, 1970 3:3, 1-3, 1968

Investigative Aid" 7:2, 1-4, 1972 polygraph instruments, Arther II 2:3, 1-4, 1967 "The Polygraph and the Police" 6:4, 1-4, 1972 polygraph in post conviction matter 6:2, 1-3, 1971 "Polygraph Report Wording" 3:5, 1-4, 1969 polygraph room 7:1, 1-4, 1972 polygraph verified homosexual's

history 6:5, 3, 1972 polygraphists - graduates of NTS 3:1, 1-4, 1968 polygraphist's oath 1:5, 4, 1967 "The Polygraph's Enemies" 1:3, 1-4, 1966 police officers no to be polygraphed 6:3, 1, 1971 police screening 2:6, 1-3, 1968

policeman ordered to take test position spot responder position of subject in chair pre-employment screening

pre-employment screening, police, survey

pre-employment tests-searching peaks

pregnant women as subjects pregnant woman, unfit subject Privacy ~ Freedom (quoted) privacy, invasion of pre-sentence examinations pre-test gestures pre-test interview

see also screening and pre-employment 6:4, 1-4, 1972 4:6, 1, 1970 5:3, 4, 1970 1:3, 1-4, 1966; 2:2, 1-4, 1967; 2:4, 1-3, 1968; 3:4, 1-3, 1969;

6:6, 1-4, 1972

5:6, 2, 1971 7:5, 3, 1973 6:3, 2, 1971 3:3, 2, 1968 1:3, 1-4, 1966 7:2, 3, 1972 4:3, 3, 1969; 4:3, 3, 1969; 5:1, 1, 1970

5:1, 3-4, 1970 4:6, 3, 1970;

probation supervision with polygraph 6:5, 4, 1972 probative value to court 8:1, 4, 1973 professionalism 6:2, 2-3, 1971 PSR - psychogalvanic skin response - see GSR psychogalvanic skin response (PSR) - see GSR

427 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Question formulation 3:4, 1-3, 1969; 3:6, 3-4, 1969; 4:5, 1-4, 1970; 8:6, 1-4, 1974; 9:1, 1-4, 1974

question formulation (guilt complex) 4:3, 1-4, 1969 question formulation, peak of ten-

sion question sequence question spacing question spot-responder questions, Arther's order

questions asked by subject questions, maximum on chart, 12 "Question Remembered" technique

2: 5, 1-4, 1968 3:6, 3-4, 1969; 4:2, 1-4, 1969 5:1, 3, 1970 4:6, 1-2, 1970 3:2, 4, 1968; 3:6, 4, 1969; 4:6, 2-3, 1970; 8:6, 2-3, 1974 4:1, 1-4, 1969 6:1, 4, 1971 5:1, 4, 1970

rationalization by criminals 3:6, 1-2, 1969 reabsorption by sweat glands 5:6, 1, 1971 reception room 7:1, 2, 1972 "red jackets" (seconal) 1:4, 2, 1967 re-examination for interrogation 3:2, 2-3, 1968 re-examination rate, 5% 6:3, 1, 1971 re-examinations 3:2, 1-4, 1968; 4:1, 3, 1969;

4:6, 2, 4, 1970 re-examinations, effect of repeated 8:2, 2, 1973 "Regional Professional Seminars" 3:3, 4, 1968 regulations for polygraph 6:3, 1-4, 1971 relief patterns (pneumo) 5:3, 1-3, 1971 report guide 3:5, 1-4, 1969 report writing 3:5, 1-4, 1969 repositioning arm-cuff pressure 6:1, 3, 1971 "The Required Polygraph Suite" 7:1, 1-4, 1972 reruns - see "Re-examinations" research - eyes closed technique 1:2, 1-4, 1966 resonance control 6:1, 4, 1971 riot, police applicant involved 6:6, 4, 1972 Road to Revolution: Communist Guerilla - warfare in the U.S.A. (book

review) - - 2:6, 3-4, 1968 rules and regulations for polygraph 6:3, 1-4, 1971

sadistic police applicant San Francisco Police Dept. screening schools, polygraph (1952) "scientific evidence" term in

court, no error screening - see also pre-employment screening by companies screening compared to background

investigations screening, police applicants searching peak Seconal semantics

6:6, 3, 1972 6:6, 4, 1972 3:3, 1, 1968

8:1, 4, 1973

6:6, 4, 1972

6:6, 1-4, 1972 2:6, 1-3, 1968 8:6, 4, 1974 1:4, 2, 1967 1:1, 1-4, 1966

428 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Seminar, Nat'l. Training Center sex questions avoided sex questions, paternity shock, unfit subject Sinex (nasal spray) sinus condition sitting position

8:3, 1-3, 1973 4:1, 2, 1969 4:4, 1-4, 1970 3:2, 2, 1968 1:4, 3, 1967 5:3, 2, 1970 5:3, 4, 1970

skin resistance response (SRR) Skokie policeman refuses test Sominex

- see GSR 6:4, 1:4, 7:1, soundproofing polygraph suite

Special Committee on Science and Law

2, 1972 2, 1967 3, 1972

(Bar of NYC) 3:3, 2, 1968 1, 1971 1-2, 1970

spinal cord 5:6, "Spot Responders" 4:6, SRR (skin resistance response) - see GSR staircase reactions (pneumo) 5:4, staircase reaction, reversed {pneumo)5:5, "State of New Jersey v. Lonny

2-3, 1971; 5:5, 1, 1971 1, 1971

McDavitt" stipulation

stipulation format stipulation on admissibility stimulant drugs, effect of stimulants and chart interpretation

7:6 and 8:1, 1973 6:2, 2, 1971; 7:6, 8:1, and 8:2, 1973; 8:5, 1-4, 1974 8:2, 3-4, 1973 2:1, 1, 1967 1:4, 1-3, 1967 7:5, 3, 1973 7:5, 1-4, 1973 stimulants during pretest

stimulus test - see also: card test, questions remembered, double verifi­cation test

stomach recordings, pneumograph "The Subversive in the Police

Department" subversives, screening for suppressions (pneumo) Supreme Court of New Jersey (State

v. Lonny McDavitt) survey of pre-employment cases survey of police pre-employment

screening sympathetic nerves systole systolic pressure

Talking (in pneumo pattern) terminology testimony of polygraphist in court therapy for homosexuals Thoracic pneumograph recordings "Three Crucial Areas" tranquilizers Tri-Span (anti-histamine) Tuberculosis Tuinal (barbiturate)

5:3, 1-4, 1970

2:6, 1-3, 1968 2:6, 1-3, 1968 5:4, 2-3, 1971

7:6 and 8:1, 1973 2:4, 2, 1968; 3:4, 2, 1969

6:6, 1-4, 1972 5:6, 1, 1971 6:1, 1, 1971 6:1, 1, 1971

5:5, 2, 1971 1:1, 1-4, 1966 7:1, 3, 1973 6:5, 2-4, 1972 5:3, 104, 1970 6:2, 3-4, 1971 1:4, 2, 1967; 7:5, 2-3, 1973 1:4, 2, 1967 5:3, 2, 1970 1:4, 2, 1967

429 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Ultran (tranquilizer) unfit subjects

unresolved cases unresponsive subject, reporting unscrupulous attornies upper arm cuff

validity statistics "The Value of Pre-&1ployment

Polygraph Examinations" verbal reactions to peak of tension victims, untruthful voice analysis instrument voluntariness, comments on

weather changes, effect on subject "What are you Worth?" "Why Just Homosexuals" witnesses polygraphed, paternity

case wrist cuff withholding facts from suspects written list and peak of tension

"Yellow jackets" (barbiturates)

People

Albert, H. A. 3:3, 4, 1968 Allen, Billy 8:3, 3, 1973 Allmers, Bert 8:2, 3, 1973 Allmers, Herbert3:1, 3, 1968

7:3, 3, 1972 Amiott, Richard 8:3, 1,3, 1973 Amszynski, Robert 7:3, 3, 1972 Ansell, Don 5:2, 2, 1970

7:3, 2, 1972 Anstey, Harry 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 Armor, Everett 7:3, 4, 1972

7:4, 4, 1974 Arnold, Leonard N. (prosecutor, N.J.) 7:6, 4, 1973

8:1, 1, 1973 Arons, Harry (his book reviewed)

2:4, 4, 1968 Arther, Richard O.

(biography) 4:1, 1, 1969 8:3, 2, 4, 1973

"The American Polygraph Assoc." 1:2, 4, 1966

1:4, 2, 1967 3:2, 1-4, 1968; 3:5, 3-4, 1969; 7:5, 3, 1973; 6:3, 1-2, 1971 3:2, 1, 1968; 3:5, 3, 1969 3:5, 4, 1969 8:2, 2-3, 1973 6:1, 2, 1971

6:2, 2, 1971

3:4, 1-3, 1969 5:1, 2, 4, 1970 2:5, 2, 1968 8:2, 2, 1973 3:3, 3, 1968

3:2, 2, 1968 8:3, 4, 1973 6:5, 4, 1972

4:4, 3, 1970 6:1, 2, 1971 6:3, 2, 1971 5:1, 3, 1970

1:4, 2, 1967

Arther, R.O. (cont.) "An Important Advance in Polygraph Instrumentation" 2:3, 1-4, 1967 "Blood Pressure Rises on Crime Ques­tions: Sometimes an Indication of Truthfulness I" 1:6, 1-4, 1967 "Breathing Analysis, Part I"

5:4, 1-4, 1971 "Breathing Analysis, Part II"

5:5, 1-4, 1971 "The Breathing Unit" 5:3, 1-4, 1970 "The Cardio Unit" 6:1, 1-4, 1971 "Courtroom Testimony" 8:5, 1-4, 1974 "Covering Two Crimes in One Examination" 4:6, 3-4, 1970 "Crime and Peak Question Wording"

8:6, 1-4, 1974 "Crime Question Wording"

4:2, 1-4, 1969 "Drugs, Medicines, Alcohol - and Chart Analysis" 7:5, 1-4, 1973

430 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Arther, R. O. (cont.) "The GSR Unit" 5:6, 1-4, 1971 "The Guilt Complex Question"

4:3, 1-4, 1969 "How Many Robbers, Burglars, Sex Criminals in Your Department Hiring This Year?" 6:6, 1-4, 1972 "Irrelevant Questions"

3 :6, 3-4, 1969 "May Professional Polygraph Seminars" 8: 3, 1-3, 1973 "Model Polygraph Agreement and Stipulation" 8:2, 1-4, 1973 "Mouthpiece Alert"3:4, 4, 1969 "National Training Center Certi­fied Polygraphists" 3:1, 1-4, 1968

7:3, 1-4, 1972 "Peak of Tension: Basic Information" 1:4, 4, 1967 "Peak of Tension Dangers"

2:5, 1-4, 1968 "Peak of Tension: Examination Procedures" 5:1, 1-4, 1970 "Peak of Tension: Question Formulation" 4:5, 1-4, 1970 "Periodic Polygraph Examinations"

9:1, 1-4, 1974 "The Polygraph Determines the Truth in Disputed Paternity Cases"

2:1, 1-4, 1967 "Polygraph Picks Potential Policemen" 2:2, 1-4, 1967 "Polygraph Report Wording"

3:5, 1-4, 1969 "The Polygraph's Enemies"

1:3, 1-4, 1966 "Recommended Law Enforcement Polygraph Rules and Regulations"

6:3, 1-4, 1971 "Re-examinations" 3:2, 1-4, 1968 "The Required Polygraph Suite"

7:1, 1-4, 1972 "spot Responders" 4:6, 1-2, 1970 "The Subversive in the Police Department" 2:6, 1-3, 1968 "Unobvious Advantages"

3:4, 3, 1969 "What are you Worth?"

8:3, 4, 1973 "Why Just Homosexuals?"

6:5, 4, 1972 "Words Make the Profession"

1:1, 1-4, 1966

431

Atwell, Robert 3:1, 2, 1968

Balzano, Augustus 7:3, 3, 1972 8:3, 1, 3, 1973

Barber, James 8:3, 3, 1973 Barefoot, J. Kirk 2:4, 1, 1968 Barici, Jack 7:4, 1, 1973

8:3, 1, 3, 1973 Barici, John 7:3, 3, 1972 Barkley, Richard 8:3, 3, 1973 Barnes, Larry 7:3, 2, 1972 Barnett, Edward 8:3, 3, 1973 Barnett, James 3:3, 4, 1968 Barnett, Raymond (biography)

7:2, 1, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973

"The Polygraph: A Narcotic In­vestigati ve Aid"

7:2, 1-4, 1972 Bates, Edward Bryant

"The Emotionally Low Responder" 3:6, 1-2, 1969

Beauchine, Ronald 7:3, 2, 1972 Benfield, Ray, Lt.6:6, 4, 1972

7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 2-3, 1973

Benton, Thomas 3:1, 4, 1968 7:4, 1, 1973

Berberich, Philip J. (photo) 2:3, 4, 1967

3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Berman, Milton 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972 7:5, 3, 1973

"Drugs versus the Polygraph"

Be zilla , Paul Bishop, Richard Blane, Kenneth Boothe, Kenneth Bopp, Herman

1:4, 1-3, 1967 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972 6:2, 1, 1971 7:4, 4, 1973 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Branche, Gilbert 8:3, 3, 1973 Brandstetter, Donald 7:3, 3, 1972 Brinegar, Max 7:3, 2, 1972

8:3, 3, 1973 Brock, Randolph III 7:3, 4, 1972 Brooks, J. C. 7:3, 1, 1972

7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 2-3, 1973

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

,-

Brophy, Joseph 7:4, 3, 1973 Brown, John 3:1, 4, 1968

7:3, 4, 1972 Brown, Shelburne 3:1, 2, 1968

Brown, Tate Bruce, Roger

7:3, 1, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 1-2, 1973

Bryar, Donald 7:3, 3, 1972 Buckward, Warren 3:1, 3, 1968

Buesing, Merle Burger, Hubert Burger, Hugh

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 6:6, 3, 1972 5:2, 4, 1970 7:3, 4, 1972

Butterfield, William 7:3, 7:4, 8:3,

3, 1972 3, 1973 3, 1973

Cabot, Ralph 7:3, 2, 1972 Campbell, Maureen 7:3, 3, 1972 Carroll, William, Jr.

7:3, 2, 8:3, 3,

Caudill, J. D. 7:3, 4, 8:3, 2,

Chabot, Bernard 5:2, 2, 7:3, 2,

Chambers, Charles7:3, 4, 7:4, 3,

Charles7:4, 3, Theodore P.

1972 1973 1972 3, 1973 1970 1972 1972 1974 1973 Chilakos,

Cielecki, photo 2:3, 4, 1967

3:1, 3, 1968 Clemons, Charles 8:3, 3, 1973 Cloonan, Stephen 3:1, 3, 1968

7:1, 3, 1972 7:2, 1, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972

Clouse, Gerald 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973

Coger, Raymond 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972

Coleman, Frank 8:3, 3, 1973 Colton, Gale (Mrs.)

3:1, 3, 1968 5:2, 3, 1970 7:3, 3, 1972

Consales, Vincent 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

1.12

Conti, Thomas

Cotter, John

Coyne; Joseph

Craven, Terrell

Crump, Milton

Cummings, Thomas Curtis, James

3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972 7:2, 1, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 1" 1973 8:3, 3, 1973

Dagitz, Robert 7:3, 1, 1972 Danner, Don 7:3, 4, 1972 De Crescenzo, Edaward

3:1, 3, 1968

Del Rossi, David Denney, Norman Dinkel, Eugene

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972

Donovan, Charles 3:1, 4, 1968

Doyle, John 7:3, 3, 1972 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Duffy, Edward 7:3, 3, 1972 Dufort, Robert 7:3, 2, 1972 Dulles, Allen (quoted on polygraph)

Dunlap, Don

Dykes, Warren

Ellis, Guy Emoto, Conan

Erikson, Edwin

Fairchild, Roger

Farrell, Kevin Feldman, Arthur

Ferguson, Robert

2:6, 3, 1968 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 8:2, 3, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973

7:3, 1, 1972 3:1, 3, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973

3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 8:3, 1, 3, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

"The Polygraphist's Oath" 1:5, 4, 1967

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Ferrante, Rocco 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Ferry, Robert 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972

Findley, F. A. 3 : 1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Fitzgerald, Thomas 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973

Flynn, James - public defender 6:2, 1, 1971

Fontana, John 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Franklin, Bill 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972

Franklin, Cecil 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973

Frustaci, Salvatore, Det. Lt. 3:1, 4, 1968 6:6, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972

Garchow, Frederick 7:3, 3, 1972 Gardella, Stephen L.

"How the Combat Polygraphist Can Save Lives" 1: 5, 1-4, 1967

Gately, Robert 3:1, 4, 1968

Gaulkin, Geoffrey Gilchrist, Paul Gillikin, Claude

Gilpin, William

Gladden, William Gold, Gerald Golden, Richard

5:2, 1, 1970 7:3, 1, 1972 6:2, 1, 1971 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 1, 3, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 3:1, 2, 1968 5:3, 1, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972

"Closed Eyes Polygraph Tech-nique" 1:2, 1-4, 1966

Goldman, Susan, murder victim

Goode, Donald

Goss, Edward

6:4, 1, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 8:3, 4, 1973

Goutink, Edward 7:3, 3, 1972 Gramlich, William 5:2, 4, 1970

Gray, Joseph 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 7:4, 3, 1974

433

Greeley, Robert

Greene, Leon Groppe, Robert Grunder, Frank, Jr.

Gunn, otis

Hale, Joseph Haney, Kenneth, Lt. Hansen, Henry

7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973 8:3, 2, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

7:3, 2, 1972 6:6, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 8:3, 2, 3, 1973

Harkness, James 8:3, 3, 1973 Harmon, George W. 4:1, 4, 1969

5:3, 1, 1970 6:5, 4, 1972 6:6, 4, 1972

Hartley, H. T. 7:4, 3, 1973 Hatton, Roy (Don) 3:1, 4, 1968

Hayden, John

Heath, Richard

7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 8:3, 1, 3, 1973

Heger, Joseph, Jr. 3:1, 2, 1968

Hibbard, Joseph Hickok, Reginald

Hoff, William Hollis, Virgil Holmes, W. Leslie

Hopkins, Joseph

Hosier, Robert

7:3, 2, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 5:2, 4, 1970 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 8:3, 1, 3, 1973 3:1, 2, 1968 5:2, 2, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972

Houtsinger, Richard 3:1, 4, 1968

Hucal, Michael 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973

Hunter, Fred 5:3, 1, 1970 "How the World's Largest Drug Wholesaler Drastically Reduced Narcotic Thefts" 2:4, 1-3, 1968

Jamason, John

James, Earl

3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Jammeos anaye, Farhang 5:2, 4, 1970 7:3, 4, 1972

Jasmine, Louis 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 7:6, 3, 1973 8:1, 3, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 4, 1973

Jenkins, John 3:3, 4, 1968 Johnson, Herbert 6:5, 4, 1972 JohnEton, Carmon 7:3, 3, 1972

7:4, 2, 1973 8:2, 3, 1973

Johnston, Orville 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

Jones, Charles 3:1, 4, 1968 5:2, 3, 1970 7:3, 3, 1972

Jones, Donald 8:3, 3, 1973 Jones, Kenneth 7:3, 4, 1972 Jones, William 3:1, 4, 1968

7:3, 3, 1972

Kaeser, Raymond 7:3, 2, 1972

Kapitolik, Louis Keller, David Kelley, Douglas Kelly, Timothy

8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 1, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 3:6, 2, 1969 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Kerr, George 7:3, 3, 1972 Killebrew, Bob 7:3, 3, 1972 Kilmer, Norman 7:3, 3, 1972 Kirchgessner, Robert 7:3, 4, 1972 Kline, Milton V. (Dr.) book reviewer

2:4, 4, 1968 Kluesner, Edward 7:3, 3, 1972 Klump, Carl S. 4:1, 4, 1969

"Your Rights When Asked to Take a Polygraph Examination"

Koehl, Henry 4:1, 1-4, 1969 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Krassner, Kenneth 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973

Krebs, Daniel 8:3, 3, 1973

7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973

Krusniak, Thomas 7:3, 3, 1972

Lamons, Duncan 7: 3, 3, 1972 Lane, Duane, Lt. 6:6, 3, 1972

434

Lauder, Lee Laurendi, Nat

Lavalle, Peter

Laws, Ron Lea, Barry

2:5, 4, 1968 3:1, 4, 1968 5:2, 3, 1970 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1974

3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

Leach, Daniel 8:3, 3, 1973 Levoy, Robert 8:3, 2, 3, 4, 1973 Lord, Carl J. 8:3, 1, 3, 1973

biography 8:4, 1, 1974 "Courtroom Presentation of the Polygraphist's Opinion"

8:4, 1-4, 1974 Lordi, Joseph P. (photo)

Lough, Johnny

Lowell, Alan

2:3, 4, 3:1, 2, 7:3, 2, 3:1, 4, 7:3, 3,

1967 1968 1972 1968 1972

Luce, Phillip Abbott 2:6, 3-4, 1968 1972 Luckay, Norman 6:6, 3,

Lyng, John sgt. 3:1, 3, 1968 1971 1972

McCauley, Bud McClure, Sam McDavitt, Lonny

6:2, 1, 7:3, 3, 8:3, 4, 1973

7:4, 1, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972

(defendant) 7:6 and 8:1, 1973

McGarvey, Robert 8:3, 3, 1973 McGinnis, Frank (defendant)

8:1, 1, 1973 McKee, Rogert A.

"The Polygraph and the Police" 6:4, 1-4, 1972

McNamara, Charles 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 1973

Maddox, Walter 7:3, 2, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973

Madley, Albert 7:3, 1, 1972 Mains, Samuel III 7:3, 4, 1972

7:4, 2, 1973 Malinowski, Benjamin 3:1, 4, 1968

. 7:3, 2, 1972 Malone, David 7:3, 4, 1972

7:4, 4, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Marcus, Marvin 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Marcus, Simon 7:3, 3, 1972 Martin, Frederic C .2:1, 3-4, 1967

4:4, 3, 1970 Meek, W. C., Det. Sgt.

6:6, Melaragni, Kenneth 7:3,

8:3, Merker, Mordecai M.

3, 1972 3, 1972 3, 1973

"Polygraph for the Defense" 3:3, 1-3, 1968

Mero, Harold 7:3, 3, 1972

Micena, John 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973

Michalak, Edward 7:3, 3, 1972 Montgomery, Blair 3:1, 2, 1968

Moon, Frederick Moore, Richard

Moore, William Moran, Kevin

7:3, 2, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972 8:2, 3, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

Moree, James 8:3, 1, 2, 3, 1973 Moreland, Arnold 7:4, 3, 1973

8:3, 3, 1973 Morrell, Ron 3:3, 4, 1968 Morrison, Harold 2:4, 4, 1968

3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Munsterberg, Hugo 5:6, 1, 1971 Murphy, Raymond 3:1, 4, 1968

7:3, 4, 1972

Neigebauer, Robert 3:1, 3, 1968

Nesary, Richard Nettles, Beryl

Newburn, Rex

7:3, 3, 1972 7:4, 3, 1974 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973 8:3, 3, 1973 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Nickell, Richard 3:1, 4, 1968

North, Richard

01ch, Francee O'Rourke, Thomas Orth, Herbert

7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

435

Palau, Luis 7:3, 3, 1972 8:2, 2, 1973 8:3, 1, 3, 1973

Pangburn, Charles 3:1, 3, 1968

Payne, George Pearce, Chick Pennington, Samuel Perin, James Peterson, Robert Pfaff, Roger Alton

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 6:6, 4, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972

(judge) 3:3, 2-3, 1968

Pfeffer, Howard (prosecutor)

Plexico, William

Pollack, H. B. Poston, Don Proke, Larry

Puckett, Thomas

6:2, 1, 1971 7:3, 4, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 1, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972

Ragsdale, B. G. (Barney), Major quoted 3:3, 4, 1968

Reid, John E. 3:6, 3, 1969 4:3, 1, 1969

Riemer, Robert 5:2, 1, 1970 7:3, 1, 1972

Rhoden, William 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972

Riegel, Lloyd 8:2, 3, 1973 Rivers, Jimmy 7:3, 1, 1972 Rockafort, H. A. 7:3, 4, 1972 Rockefeller, Nelson 4:6, 2, 1970 Rodriguez, Abran 7:3, 3, 1972 Ross, Martin 3:1, 4, 1968

7:3, 4, 1972 Roux, George J.,Jr. 6:4, 1, 1972 Ryan, Kenneth 8:3, 3, 1973

st. Clair, W. C. "Three Crucial Areas"

6:2, 3-4, 1971 Samples, James 7:3, 4, 1972

7:4, 4, 1973 Sandacz, Gene T. 2:3, 1, 1967

3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 8:2, 1, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 4, 1973

Satterfield, James 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 2, 1972

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Scarce, Kenneth 7:5, 2, 1973 Schafer, William III (his book

reviewed) 2:4, 4, 1968 Schatkin, Sidney B.

"Paternity Proceedings and the Polygraph" 4:4, 1-4, 1970

Schermerhorn, John 3:1, 4, 1968

Schmidt, Jack

7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972

Schneider, Jack 7:3, 1, 1972 Schorr, C.A. (Ken) 3:1, 2, 1968

5:2, 1, 1970 7:3, 1, 1972

Schwartzkopf, Alexander

Scott, Lawrence Seath, Edward Seibt, Louis

3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

Semke, Wally 8:3, 3, 1973 Severence, Ralph 3:1, 3, 1968

7:3, 3, 1972 Shearwood, Benjamin 7:3, 4, 1972 Silva, Ben 3:1, 3, 1968

7:3, 3, 1972 Skousen, W. Cleon (author)

Smith, Eugene

Snyder, Bruce

6:5, 1-4, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972 7~4, 3, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 1973

Sonntag, Richard (public defender)

Sorenson, Thomas Span, 1. B. Spletzer, Robert

6:2, 1, 1971 8:3, 3, 1973 7:4, 3, 1973 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

Stacy, E.E. (Bud) 3:1, 2, 1968

Stephens, Elvis C.

5:2, 2, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972

"The Value of Pre-employment Polygraph Examinations"

st ewart, Gene Stubbs, Andrew Sullivan, Donald Summers, Joseph

Swingle, Morley

3:4, 1-3, 1969 7:4, 3, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 5:2, 2, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 3, 1972

436

Switalski, M. J.

Thatcher, Glenn Thompson, Kenneth Thornburg, Royce Thorp, Robert Toth, John

Trotta, Donald

Turner, Jack

Turner, William

Upshaw, Gilbert

Van De Werken, W.A. Vona, Patrick

Wagenti, Les

Wagner, Darrell

Wagner, Donald Wagner, Robert G.

Waller, Vernon

Ward, O. D.

Warner, George

7:4, 3, 1973

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 8:3, 2, 3, 4, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972 8:3, 3, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972

7:3, 3, 1972

3:3, 4, 1968 7:4, 3, 1973

7:3, 3, 1972 8:3, 1, 3, 1973 2:3, 2, 1967 3:1, 4, 1968 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 2:3, 3, 1967 3:1, 4, 1968 3:1, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 3:1, 3, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Watkins, Maude, complaintant (N.J.) 6:2, 1, 3, 1971

Watson, Joseph, defendant N.J.

Weimer, Bernard

Weir, Robert

Welch, Ted Wells, Douglas

6:2, 1-3, 1971 3:1, 2, 1968 5:2, 2, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972 3:1, 2, 1968 5:2, 2, 1970 7:3, 2, 1972 8:3, 2, 3, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972 7:4, 1, 3, 1973

Wescott, Michael, defendant 8:1, 1, 1973

Westin, 'Alan F.,Prof.3:3, 2, 1968 Wheeler, Dee 5:3, 4, 1970

Wheeler, Richard Whidden, E. G.

7:1, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 2, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Whisenhunt, Jerry 7:3, 3, 1972 Wiseman, Kal 7:1, 4, 7:4, 3, 1973 Wood. Chuck (Special Agent)

Whitman, Charles 8:3, 3, 1973 6:6, 3, Wicker, William 3:3, 1, 1968 Wyndham, Stephen 3:1, 4, Wilcox, Richard 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 4,

8: 3, 1, 3, 1973 Wilds, Lowell 7:3, 3, 1972 Williams, J. D. 3:3, 4, 1968 Wilson, James 7:3, 3, 1972

ORGANIZATIONS

Alabama examiners Albany Police Dept. (Georgia) Allen County Police, Indiana American Polygraph Association Arapaho Country Sheriff's Dept. Augusta Police Dept., Georgia

Young, Gary

Zimmerman, Joseph

7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 1-.2, 1972

7:4, 3, 1973 1:2, 4, 1966

(Colorado) 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973

7:3, 1,

7:3, 3, 8:3, 3,

1972

1972 1968 1972

1972

1972 1973

Baltimore Police Dept., Maryland Bergen County Prosecutor's Office

3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, (N.J.) 3:1, 3, 1968;

2, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972;

Boca Raton Police Dept. (Florida) Bronx District Attorney, N.Y. Broward County Sheriff's Office Burlington County Prosecutor, N.J.

8:2, 3, 1973 7:3, 1, 1972; 7:4, 7:3, 3, 1972; 8:2, 8:4, 1, 1974 7:3, 3, 1972

CAPE, see California Association of Polygraph Examiners Cadet Cleaners, Buffalo, N.Y. 7:3, 3, 1972 Cadet Cleaners, Rochester, N.Y. 7:3, 4, 1972

2, 1973 2, 1973

California Association of Polygraph Examiners Seminar 3:3, 4, 1968 California Examiners 7:3, 1, 1972 Camden Police Department, N.J. 7:3, 3, 1972 Canadian Examiners(R.C.M.P.) 7:3, 4, 1972 W. L. Carroll, Jr. & Associates 7:3, 2, 1972 Cayahoga Falls, Ohio Police Dept. 2:3, 2, 1967; 3:1, 4, 1968 Central Intelligence Agency 3:3, 1, 1968; 6:6, 3, 1972 Central Intelligence Agency Screening 2:6, 3, 1968 Central Watch Service (Chicago) 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 2, 1972 Champlain Security Systems 7:3, 4, 1972 Chelan County Sheriff, Wenatchee, Washington 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Chicago & Southern Airlines 7:3, 2, 1972 Chicago Professional Polygraph Center 4:1, 4, 1969 CIA, see Central Intelligence Agency Cincinnati Police Department, Ohio 7:3, 4, 197~ Collier County Sheriff's Office (Fla.) 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972; 7:2, 1,

1972 Colorado Examiners 7:3, 1, 1972 Colorado Springs Police Dept. 7:3, 1, 1972; 7:4, 1-.2, 1973

437 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

f i

Columbia County Prosecutor, Lisbon, Columbus, Georgia Police Dept. Columbus, Ohio Police Dept. Connecticut Examiners

Ohio 7:3, 4, 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972; 7:3, 1, 1972

1972 7:3, 1...2, 1972 7:4, 3, 1973

Connecticut State Police Connecticut State Police

3:1, 1, 1968; 7:2, 1, 1972 Polygraph Program, see Arther, R. O. "Polygraph

Picks Potential Policemen", 2:2, 3, 1967

Dade County Sherriff's Office, Fla. Dale, System, Inc. (New York City) Dayton Police Department, Ohio Delaware Examiners Delaware State Police Department of Defense

Eau Claire Police Dept., Wisconsin Jack Echerd Drug Company Essex County Prosecutor, N.J.

Fairborn Police Dept., Ohio Farmington Police Dept., Michigan Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida Examiners Florida State Adult Corrections Foremost - McKesson, Inc. Fort Lauderdale Police Dept., Fla. Fort Wayne Police Dept., Indiana Fort Worth Police Dept., Texas

3:1, 2, 1968 3:1, 4, 1968 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 3:3, 1, 1968

7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 4, 1973 7:3, 2, 1972 2:3, 4, 1967; 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972

7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 3:3, 1, 1968 7:3, 1, 1972 7:4, 2, 1973 2:4, 1-3, 1968 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 2, 1972 5:3, 4, 1970

Georgia Dept. of Public Safety 7:3, 1...2, 1972; 7:4, 1...2, 1973 Georgia Polygraph Assoc. Seminars 3:3, 4, 1968 Georgia Examiners 7:3, 1...2, 1972 Gloucester County Prosecutor, N.J. 7:3, 3, 1972 Gray Security Services (Miami) 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 Greater Lansing Special Police (Mich) 3:1, 3, 1968

Hammer Security Service Hampton Police Dept., Virginia Hudson County Prosecutor, N.J. Huntsville Police Dept.

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 4, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972

Illinois Examiners 7:3, 2, 1972 Indiana Examiners 7:3, 2, 1972 Industrial Security Analysts, N.Y.C. 7:3, 3, 1972 International Institute of Polygraph Sciences 8:4, 1, 1974 Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation 6:6, 3, 1972 Iranian Army Examiner 7:3, 4, 1972

Jacksonville Police Dept., Florida Jersey City Police Dept., N.J.

Kane Associates (Phila.)

7:3, 1, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1968; 7:4, 3-4, 1973

3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Kansas City Police Dept., Mo. 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973; 8:2, 3, 1973

Kenosha Police Dept., Wisc. 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Kentucky Examiner 7:3, 2, 1972

Lansing Police Dept., Mich. 7:3, 3, 1972 Las Cruces Police Dept., N.M. 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 Legal Aid Society 8:2, 1-2, 1973 Louisiana Examiners 7:3, 2, 1972 Lower Merion Police Dept., Pa. 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972

McKesson & Robbins - see Foremost - McKesson, Inc. Marine Corps. (U.S.) Examiner 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Marion County Sheriff (Indianapolis) 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 2, 1972 Maryland Examiners 7:3, 2, 1972 Maryland State Police 3:1, 2, 1968; 5:2, 2, 1970; Michigan Examiners 7:3, 2-3, 1972 Michigan State Police 3:1, 3, 1968; 5:2, 2, 1970; Miley Detective Agency 7:3, 4, 1972 Millville Police Dept., N.J. 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 Missouri Examiners 7:3, 3, 1972 Missouri State Highway Patrol 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 Mobile Police Dept., Alabama 7:3, 1, 1972 Montgomery County Coroner, Dayton, Ohio 7:3, 4, 1972 Muncie Police Dept., Illinois 7:3, 2, 1972 Muncie Police Dept., Indiana 7:3, 2, 1972

NSA - see National Security Agency Naples Police Dept., Florida 7:3, 1, 1972 Nassau County Police Dept., N.Y. 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 National Security Agency 3:3, 1, 1968; 6:6, 3, 1972 National Security Agency Screening 2:6, 3, 1968 National Training Center of Lie Detection Course Description

Nevada Detective Service Nevada Examiner

3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972

7:3, 2, 1972

7:3, 2-3, 1972

New Hampshire Examiner New Jersey State Police New Mexico Examiners New Mexico State Police

3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 1-4, 1973 7:3, 3, 1972

New Port Richey Police Dept., Fla. New York City Police Dept. New York District Atty's Office New York Examiners New York State Police

7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3-4, 1973 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 7:3, 3, 1972 3:1, 3-4, 1968; 7:3, 3-4, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973

Newark Police Dept., N.J. 3:1, 3,. 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 Newport Beach Police Dept., Calif. 7:3, 1, 1972 North Carolina Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972 North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 Northwest Polygraph Assoc. Seminar 3:3, 4, 1968

439 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

OSI, U. S. Air Force 7:3, 4, 1972 Oakland County Sheriff, Mich. 7:3, 3, 1972 Oakland Police Dept., Calif. 7:3, 1, 1972 Ocean City Police Dept., Md. 7:3, 2, 1972 Office of Special Investigations, USAF 7:3, 4, 1972 Ohio Polygraph Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972 Ohio State Highway Patrol 7:4, 3, 1973 Ohio State Patrol 7:3, 4, 1972 Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Orange County (Calif.) District Attorney's Office - see

R. O. Arther, "The Polygraph Determines the Truth in Disputed Paternity Cases." 2:1, 1-4, 1967

Paterson Police Dept., N.J. 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 Pennsylvania Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972 Peoria, Ill. Sheriff's Police 7:4, 2, 1973 Peoria Police Dept., Illinois 3:1, 2, 1968 Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Pa. 7:4, 3, 1973 Philadelphia Police Dept., Pa. 7:3, 4, 1972 Pontiac Police Dept., Mich. 3:1, 3, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972 Prince George's County Police, Md. 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 2, 1972 Providence Police Dept., R.I. 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972

Rhode Island Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972 Rhode Island State Police 7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 4, 1973 Ross Bureau of Investigation 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Royal Canadian Mounted Police 5:2, 4, 1970; 7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 2, 1973 Royal Iranian Army 5:2, 4, 1970; 7:3, 4, 1972

Saginaw Police Dept., Mich. 7:3, 3, 1972 st. Louis Police Dept., Mo. 7:3, 3, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 Salinas, Calif. Police Dept. 6:6, 3, 1972 San Diego Sheriff's Dept. 6:6, 3, 1972 San Francisco Police Dept. 7:3, 1, 1972 San Jose Police Dept., Calif. 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 San Mateo County Sheriff's Office 7:3, 1, 1972 Scientific Lie Detection, Inc.,N.Y. 7:3, 4, 1972 Security Associates, Inc. 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 Seneca County Sheriff, Tiffin,Ohio 2:3, 3, 1967 Sharon Police Dept., Pa. 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 South Carolina Law Enforcement 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 Spokane County Sheriff, Washington 7:3, 4, 1972 State Bureau of Investigation (Oklahoma) 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 state Department 3:3, 1, 1968 stoelting Co. 3:1, 2, 1968; 7:3, 2, 1972 Suffolk County Police, N.Y. 3:1,3-4,-1968; 7:3,3,1972

TAPE - see Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners Taylor Police Dept., Michigan 7:3, 3, 1972 Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners Seminar

3:3, 4, 1968 Texas Examiner 7:3, 4, 1972

440 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

United Polygraph Service, Pa. U.S. Coast Guard, Intell. Branch U.S. Marine Corps

3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 3:1, 2, 4, 1968

U.S. Marshal, Cleveland, Ohio

Vermont Examiner Vero Beach Police Dept., Fla. Virginia Examiners

7:4, 3, 1973 7:3, 4, 1972

7:3, 4, 1972 7:3, 1, 1972 7:3, 4, 1972

Virginia State Police Vornado, Inc., N.J.

3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 4, 1972 2:3, 1, 1967; 3:1, 3-4, 1968; 7:3, 3, 1972

Washington (state) Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972 West Coast Truth Verification, Fla. 7:3, 1, 1972 West Palm Beach Police Dept., Fla. 3:1, 1, 1968; 7:3, 1, 1972 Winston-Salem Police Dept., N.C. 7:3, 4, 1972; 7:4, 3, 1973 Wisconsin Examiners 7:3, 4, 1972

Yakima Police Dept., Washington 7:3, 4, 1972

Lincoln M. Zonn, Inc. 3:1, 4, 1968; 7:3, 2-4, 1972

LAW

29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, 296, p. 341. and 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, 831. 8:1, 3, 1973

Butler v. State 228 So 2d 421, 36 ALR3 1274 (1969 Fla. App.) 6:2, 2, 1971

Carpinelli v. Manhattan Bottling Corp. 21 A.D. 2d 792, 250 N.Y.S. 2d 756 (Supreme Court, App. Div. 2nd Dept., 1964)

6:2, 2, 1971 City of Miami v. Jervis, 139 S02d 513 (Fla App 1962)

6:4, 4, 1972 Colbert v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W. 2d 825 (Kentucky 1957)

7:6, 4, 1973 Commissioner of Welfare v. Wentlandt, 25 App Div 2d, 640, 268 N.Y.

Supp. 2d, 547 (paternity case) 4:4, 4, 1974 Commissioner v. Weiner, 15 App. Div. 2d. 744 (paternity case)

4:4, 4, 1974 Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass 266, 191 N.E. 2d 479 (1963)

6:4, 4~ 1972 Coursey v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners

6:4, 4, 1972 Fichera v. State Personnel Board 6:4, 3, 1972 Frye v. U.S., 54 App. D.C. 46 (1923) 7:6, 3, 1973 Gafford v. State, 440 P 2d 405 (Alaska 1968) 7:6, 3, 1973 Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968) 6:4, 4, 1972 Garrity v. New Jersey 6:4, 3, 1972 Gray v. Ross 30 A.D. 2d 138, 290 N.Y.S. 2d 647 (paternity case)

4:4, 4, 1970 Habersham v. Grimaldi, 18 A.D. 2d 615, 234 N.Y.S. 2d 599 (Supreme Court,

App. Div, First Dept. 1962) 3:3, 3, 1968; 6:2, 2, 1971

441 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Lee v. State, 455 S.W. 2d 316 (Tex. Cr. App. 1970) 6:4, 4, 1972

Lucas v. State, 479 S.W. 2d 314 (Texas Cr. App. 1972) 8:1, 4, 1973

Marable v. State, 313 S.W. 2d 451 (Tenn. 1958) 7:6, 3, 1973

McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972), 207, pp. 504-507 8:1, 3-4, 1973

Molino v. Board of Public Safety of City of Torrington, 225 A. 2d 805 (Conn. Sup. 1966) 6:4, 4, 1972

People v. Brownsky, 35 Misc 134, 228 N.Y. 2d 476 (1962) on admissibility 3:3, 3, 1968

People v. Forte, 279 N.Y. 204, 18 N.E. (2) 31 (1938) on judicial notice of polygraph 3:3, 3, 1968; 6:2, 2, 1971

People v. Houser, 193 P 2d 937 (Calif. 1948) 7:6, 4, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973

People v. Kenny, 167 Misc. 51, N.Y.S. 2d 348 (1938) 6:2, 2, 1971; 3:3, 3, 1968

Pulakis v. State, 476 P 2d 474 (Alaska 1970) 7: 6t 3, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973

Rank v. State, 373 P 2d 734 (Alaska 1962) 7:6, 3, 1973

Roux v. New Orleans Police Dept. 171 So. 2d 730 (La. App. 1965) 6:4, 4, 1972

1965, 23 A.D. 2d 796, 259 N.Y. S. 2d 169 (paternity Smeid v. Jansons, case) 4:4, 4, 1970

(1961) State v. Arnwine, 67 N.J. super 483 6:2, 4, 1971

State v. Arnwine, 67 N.J. super 483 (App. Div. 1961) 7:6, 3-4, 1973; 8:1, 4, 1973

State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 (1962) 6:2, 2, 1971; 7:6, 3, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973 State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348 (1958) 6:2, 2, 1971 State v. Kavanaugh 52 N.J. 7 (1968) 6:2, 2, 1971 State v. La Rocca, 81 N.J. super 40 (1963) 8:2, 2, 1971 State v. La Rocca, 81 N.J. super 40, 47 (App. Div. 1963)

7:6, 3, 1973 State v. McNamara, 104 N.W. 2d 568 (Iowa 1960)

7:6, 4, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973 State of New Jersey v. Lonny McDavitt, Supreme Court of N.J., 1972,

62 N.J. at 36 7:6 and 8:1, 1973 State v. Parsons, 83 N.J. super 430 (1964)

6:2, 2, 1971; 7:6, 3-4, 1973 State v. Peetros 45 N.J. 54 (1965) 6:2, 2, 1971; 8:1, 3, 1973 State v. Trimble, 362 P 2d 788 (New Mexico 1961)

7:6, 4, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973 State v. Valdez, 371 P 2d 894 (Arizona, 1962)

7:6, 3-4, 1973; 8:1, 3, 1973 State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208 (1962) 6:2, 1 1971 state v. Joseph Watson, 115 N.J.S. 213 (171), 278 ATL 2nd 543

6:2, 1-3, 1971 u.S. Supreme Court Decision 6:4, 1-4, 1972 u.S. v. Ridling F. Supp. (E.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 1972) 8:1~ 3, 1973 u.S. v. Zeiger, 12 Crim L Rptr 2057 (D.C. Oct. 10, 1972) 8:1, 3-4, 1973 Williams v. New York 337 u.S. 241 (1949) 6:2, 3, 1971 Williams v. State, 238 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970) 8:1, 4, 1973

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

REVIEWS AND ABSTRACTS

U. S. Government, ~ Vietnam ~ ~ Returns, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1974, 172 pages, order PrEx 20.9:A/2, siN 4101-00093. Price $2.10.

The extent and consequences of American military drug abuse in Vietnam were studied. The study population was male Army enlisted personnel returning to the United States in September of 1971. This book discusses the results of the study's tests and interviews in relation to the typical U.S. soldier in Vietnam. The use of drugs in Vietnam, use of drugs after Vietnam, shifts in drug use, and the returnee's opinions about Army and Veterans Administra­tion policies are discussed. The first of its kind, this study also provides a look at the natural history of drug abuse, not just in the Vietnam War but here on our streets as well.

Electrical Activity of the Skin

Evans, F. J., O'Connell, D. N. and Tursky, B., "Normality of Distribution of Resting Palmer Skin Potential," Psychophysiolog.y (October 1967) 4:151-155. Palmer skin potential obtained under standardized recording conditions. 24 citations.

Blanton, D. E., Dykman, R. A., and Juniper, J. Jr., "Palmer Skin Re­sistance and Sweat-Gland Counts in Drug and Non-Drug States," Psychophysiology (October 1967) 4:231-243. Drugs used: propantheline Bromide and Betazole aydrachloride, anticholinergics. 25 citations.

Ferreira, A. J., Ransom, R. and Winter, W. D., "Two Measures of Anxiety -A Validation," Journal ~ Consulting Psycholog.y (December 1963) 27:520-524. Validation stuJy of two measures of anxiety, an affect adjective check list and palmer sweat index. 14 citations.

Cardiovascular

Williams, B. and Williams, J. G. L., "Arterial Pulse Wave Velocity as a Psychophysiological Measure," Psychosomatic Medicine (Sept-Oct 1965) 27:40S-414.

Pulmonary

Dudley, D. L., Holmes, T. H. and Martin, C. J., "Psychophysiologic Studies of Pulmonary Ventilation," Psychosomatic Medicine (Nov-Dec 1964) 26:645-660. Studies included various emotional states, exercise and sleep. 35 citations.

Rashman, S. M., "The F'wlction of External Respiration in Mental Activity," Fiziologichnii Zhurnal (May-June 1972) lS:361-366. In Ukranian language. Discusses stress, respiration, cardiovascular response and mental performance.

Interrogation - Miranda Warning

Smith, J. V., "Threshold Question in Applying Miranda - What Constitutes

443 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Custodial Interrogation," South Carolina Law Review (February 1974) 25: 699-735. Discusses points at which Miran~warnings must be offered, in­cluding the tests which the courts have applied to determine whether an interrogation is custodial. Includes case law on interrogations in Subject's home and at the crime scene.

******

****** ANSWER KEY TO POLYGRAPH REVIEW ON PHYSIOLOGY:

1. b. Interpreting the polygrams.

2. c. Capillaries.

3. c. Semilunar valve.

4. d. Endocrine system.

5. b. 72 beats per minute.

6. b. Heart beats with more force.

7. d. Medulla.

S. a & b. Increases rate of breathing and heart rate.

9. c. 13 to 18.

10. c. Hypothalmus.

******

444 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

POLYGRAPH REVIEW

By

Bobby J. Daily

How would you score on a licensing examination? Are you sufficiently up-to-date about such subjects as psychology, physiology, instrumentation, test question construction, chart interpretation, interview techniques, etc.? Are you prepared to undergo direct and cross-examination on polygraph sub­jects in court? A score of 9 or 10 is excellent, 7 or 8 is good, and below 7 may indicate some review is warranted. The review in this issue is on phy­siology. (The answers are on page 444).

1. The study of physiology in instrumental detection of deception is designed to assist the examiner in:

a. understanding the general organization of the body.

b. interpreting the polygrams.

c. applying the physical principles of stimulus-response techniques.

d. giving emergency treatment to an ill examinee.

2. The exchange of water, oxygen and food substances between the circuJ.atory system and body tissues occurs in the:

a. arterioles.

b. veins.

c. capillaries.

d. arteries.

3. The dicrotic notch is produced by the blood rebounding in the aorta and being suddenly checked by the:

a. ventricular valve.

b. auricular valve.

c. semilunar valve.

d. tricuspid valve.

4. The body system concerned chiefly with the regulation of long-term process is the:

a. nervous system.

b. exocrine system.

445 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

c. excretory system.

d. endocrine system.

5. The normal pulse rate of the average adult male is approximately:

a. 66 per minute.

b. 72 per minute.

c. 84 per minute.

d. 96 per minute.

6. An increase in carbon dioxide in the blood. stream would cause the heart to beat:

a. with less force.

b. with more force.

c. erratically.

d. without change.

7. Cardiac center of regulation is located in the:

a. hypothalmus.

b. thalmus.

c. cerebrum.

d. medulla.

8. Acute anxiety USUALLY: (Two answers):

a. increases rate of breathing.

b. increases heart rate.

c. decreases rate of breathing.

d. decreases heart rate.

9. The average range of respiratory rate in cycles per minute in an adult is from:

a. 9 to 12.

b. 11 to 14.

c. 13 to 18.

d. 17 to 21.

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

). The highest center for regulation of the autonomic nervous system, body temperature and sleep is in the:

a. cerebrum.

b. medulla.

c. hypothalmus.

d. thalmus.

******

VOLUME 3 - ANNUAL INDEX

ANS - autonomic nervous system responses A.P.A. Principles of Practice Abrams, Stanley, Ph.D. (author) "Addiction & SocietY" Adjudicatory hearing Admissibility Admissibility - Georgia (1960) Admissibility as evidence Admissibility in court Admissibility test Admissions - Police Screening Admissions and rewording questions Admitting Polygraph Results as Evidence Adrenaline, release of Alcohol-cannabis epidemic "amotivational syndrome" Amplifiers for cardiovascular response Anger "Anger and the Polygraph Technique" Anger influences of polygraph records Ansley, Norman (author) "Anticlimax Dampening Concept" Anticlimax Dampening Effect Anxiety "Applicant Screening in the Los Angeles Police Dept." "The Application of Bode Analysis to Skin Impedence"

(abstt"act) Armed robbery defendants cleared Army Polygraph School "Arterial Pulse Wave Velocity as

Measure" (abstract) Arther, Richard O. Association Test Attributive Reaction

a Psychophysiological

Automatic Data Processing of Polygraph Responses

447

37S 405 257, 32S-337, 343 359 51-63 373, 375 191-193 90-99 220-230 55-56 lS2-1SS 154-155, 160, 166 320 3S4 365 362 235 37S, 3S1-394 3S1-394 3S5-391 344, 417-442 413-50, 216, 21S 50 7S-79, 379 177-1SS

346 197, 199-203 205-209

443 414-442 11, 13-14, 3S2 70-71

3S-39

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

INDEX TO CASE CITATIONS

Adams v. Williams 407 U.S. 143 (1972) Anderson v. State 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. App. 1970) Bilings v. Atkinson 489 S.W. 2d 858 (Tex.Sup. 1973) Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368, 383, 37 N.W. 2d 593,

596, 600 (1949) Butler v. State, 228 So. 2d 421, 16 N.Y.L. Forum

646 (1969) Christal, et al., v. Police Commission of San

Francisco, 92 P. 2d 416 (1939) Clark v. State, 218 Tenn. 259, 270 Colbert v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 306 S.W. 2d

825 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957) Commonwealth (Massachusetts) v. A Juvenile, 15

C.L.R. 2323, (1974) Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266 (1963) Commonwealth v. Johnson 309 Mass. 476, 35 N.E. 2d

801 Coursey v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners

90 Ill. App. 2d 31, 234 N.E. 2d 339 (1967) Fire Department of City v. City of Fort Worth,

217 S.W. 2d 664 (Tex. Sup. 1949) Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Service Commission

v. Hammen, 404 S.W. 2d 308 (Tex. Sup. 1966) Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46,

293, F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) Gaddis v. State (Wisc. 1974) Gardner v. Broderick 392 U.S. 273 (1967) Gayer v. Schlesinger 409 F. 2d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Grant v. State 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W. 2d 391 (1963) Griffin v. California 380 U.S. 609 (1965) William Scott Hepburn v. Joseph L. Alioto, et ale

C-71-2309-OJC, Nov. 21, 1974 Kastigar v. U.S. 406 U.S. 441, 32 L.Ed. 2d 212,

92 S. Ct. 1653 (1972) Lerner v. Casey, 359 U.S. 468 McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 (1958) McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 81 S. Ct.

1976, 29 L.Ed. 2d 647 (1973) Marabelle v. State 203 Tenn. 440, 455, et seq, 313

S.W. 2d 451 (1958) Marks v. U.S. 260 F. 2d 377 (loth Cir. 1958) Metcalf V. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 648, 156 N.E.

2d 649 (1959) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Morrison v. State Board of Education, 82 Cal.

Reptr. 175 (1969) New Mexico v. Gilbert Alderete (No. 1287, 25 Mar 74) Norton v. Macy, 417 F. 2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1969) People v. Carter, 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 (Cal. App. 1970) People v. Cutter, 12 Cr. L. 2133 (1972) People v. Zavalete, 182 Cal. App. 2d 422, 6 Cal. Rptr.

166, 171 (1960)

458

94 319 101

310

94, 318

402 398

55

277, 323, 373, 400 373

55

102

103

103

55, 309, 222 415 414 398 62

412-416

62 402 414

61

398 55

55 373

414 223-230 414 373 323

310

316

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

Perez v. Los Angeles Police Commission, 178 P. 2d 537 (1947)

Peterson v. state, 157 Tex. Cr. 255, 247 S.W. 2d 120 (1952)

Placker v. State, 171 Tex. Cr. R. 406, 350 S.W. 2d 546 (1961)

Pockman v. Leonard, 240 P. 2d 267 (1952) Puckett v. City and County of San Francisco, 208

Cal. App. 2d 471, 25 Cal. Rptr. 276 (1962) Robinson v. California, 370 u.s. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417

8 L. Ed. 2d (1962) Romero v. State, 493 S.W. 2d 206 (Ct. C. App. Tex.,

1973), 12 C.L.R. 2152 Seattle Police Officers' Guild v. City of Seattle,

80 Wash. 2d·307, 494 P. 2d 485 (1972) Smith v. State, 44 S.W. 2d 941 (1969) State v. Alderete, Ct. of App. for New Mexico,

15 C.L.R. 2028, 2-27-74 State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314 (1933) State v. Chavez (New Mexico) 80 N.M. 786, 787, 461

P. 2d 919 (Ct. App. 1969); 82 N.M. 238, 478 P. 2d 566 (Ct. App. 1970); 456 F. 2d 1072 (loth Cir. 1972)

State v. Community Distributors, Inc., 317 A. 2d 697 State v. Davis, 188 So. 2d 24 (Fla. App. 1966) State of Florida v. George Curtis, No. 70-5585,

Jan. 31, 1973 State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 120 S.E. 2d 169 (1961) State v. Keiper, 493 P. 2d 750 (Ore. App. 1972) State v. Lindemuth (New Mexico) 56 N.M. 257, 273, 274,

243 P. 2d 325 (1952) state v. Meyers, 74 N.D. 297, 22 N.W. 2d 199 (1946) State v. Ross, 497 P. 2d 1343 State of Nebraska v. Sanchell, 216 N.W. 2d 504 (1974) State of Ohio v. Donna Sonnie, No. 73 CR 100, June 20,

1974 State v. Stanislawski, 216 N.W. 2d 8 (S. Ct. Wis.

1974) 15 C.L.R. 2093 State v. Valdez (Arizona 1962) 274, 371 P. 2d 894 Steiner v. Los Angeles Police Commission, 199 P. 2d

429 (1948) Talent v. City of Abilene, Docket hQ.4619, Tex. Civ.

App. - Eastland, June 8, 1973 Tucker v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L.S. 10 (Ky. 5/17/74) u.S. v. Chastian, 435 F. 2d 686, 687 (7th Cir. 1970) u.s. v. DeBethem, 348 F. Supp. 1377 (S.D. Cal. 1972) u.S. v. Diogardi, Crim. No. 72-1102 (E.D.N.Y. 1972) u.S. v. Dionisio, 12 Cr. L. 3083 (1/22/1973) u.S. v. Frogge, C.A. 4, April 11, 1973 u.S. v. Hart, 344 F.Supp. 522 (E.D. N.Y. 1971) u.S. v. Lanza, 356 F. Supp. 27 (M.D. Fla. 1973) u.S. v. McDavitt, 328 F. 2d 282 (CA6, 1964) u.S. v. Mara, 12 Cr. L. 3089 (1/12/1973)

459

~2

55

55 402

414

54

400

101, 314 55

278, 399 55, 277

~5, 321 395, 400 318

279 55 3V

225 55 321, 395, 399 278

279

220-222, 277, 395, 399 220, 278, 310, 395, 399

101 321 283 56, 321 279-280 93, 94 399 279, 281, 319 283 398-399 93-94

Polygraph 1974, 03(4)

u.s. v. Ridling, 350 F. Supp. 90 (E.D. Mich.1972)

u.s. v. Urquidez, 356 F. Supp. 1363 (C.D. Cal. 1973) 13 C.L.R. 1251

U.S. v. Wainwright, 413 F. 2d 796 (loth Cir. 1969) u.s. v. Zeiger, 350 F. Supp. 6S5, 12 C.L.R. 2057

D.C. Washington, D.C. 475 F. 2d 12SO

utah v. Jenkins Weston v. Henderson, 279 F. Supp. S62 (E.D. Tenn.) Wisconsin v. Bohner (1933), 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W.

314

******

HAVE YOU MOVED?

56, 57, 92-93, 279, 2S2, 310, 322, 395, 400

400 2S3, 311

56, 126, 2SO, 2S2, 39S, 400 375 39S

220

Please detach and return to: American Polygraph Association P. O. Box 74 Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090

NAME ______________________________ ___

OLD ADDRESS: NEW ADDRESS:

ZIP ________ _ ZIP ______ __

[Are you a member of A.P.A.? Yes No If yes, the Secretary and Treasurer of the Association will be notified of your move.]

460 Polygraph 1974, 03(4)