Should I take a lie detector test and why? 14 Answers as of May 04, 2015

Should I take a lie detector test even though I have never been charged with a criminal offense but am under a criminal investigation?

Ask a Local Attorney. 100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

Free Case Evaluation by a Local Lawyer: Click here
Lawrence Lewis
Lawrence Lewis | Lawrence Lewis, PC
I would not take a lie detector test. Either they/police have enough evidence to charge me, or they do not. I will not be helping them gather evidence against me.
Answer Applies to: Georgia
Replied: 5/4/2015
Mace J. Yampolsky, LTD
Mace J. Yampolsky, LTD | Mace Yampolsky
Absolutely not! They are not admissible and not reliable.
Answer Applies to: Nevada
Replied: 5/4/2015
Universal Law Group, Inc. | Francis John Cowhig
Never take a lie detector test, unless it is arranged by your attorney.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 5/4/2015
Cynthia Henley, Lawyer
Cynthia Henley, Lawyer | Cynthia Henley
You should hire a lawyer IMMEDIATELY. You should not be talking to cops at all. You should not do one more thing in your situation until you have a lawyer representing you.
Answer Applies to: Texas
Replied: 5/1/2015
Gates' Law, PLLC | Thomas E. Gates
No! Lie detectors are not reliable and cannot be used in court. If you take one and it does not show guilt, they will just tell you that the results were inconclusive. Retain an attorney immediately. Do NOT make any statements without the attorney present.
Answer Applies to: Washington
Replied: 5/1/2015
    Law Office of Edward J. Blum
    Law Office of Edward J. Blum | Edward J. Blum
    No. Hire a lawyer. Do not talk to cops.
    Answer Applies to: California
    Replied: 5/1/2015
    Ksicinski
    Ksicinski | Paul Ksicinski
    *Polygraph machines lie because there is no lie detection machine* Throughout history it has often been assumed that lying can be detected by examining changes in bodily activity - but we are actually deceiving ourselves if we believe there will ever be an error-free way of detecting deception. Polygraph tests in particular should not be ascribed special status. Of course polygraph tests are currently used in criminal investigations in the US. However, in a criminal case, when someone?s liberty is at stake, a polygraph is not admissible in Wisconsin. Further Wisconsin employers are not supposed to use them on employees. In a number of countries the courts have been apprehensive about admitting testimony concerning the ?outcomes? of polygraphic lie detection. Polygraph tests work by measuring changes in bodily activity such as heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and palmar sweating. Three out of the four most popular lie detection procedures assume that while answering so-called ?relevant? questions, liars will be more aroused than while answering so- called ?control? questions. Yet this premise is somewhat na?ve, as truth tellers may also be more aroused when answering the relevant questions, particularly when these relevant questions are emotion evoking, for example an innocent man, questioned about murdering his beloved wife, might experience strong feelings about her. An innocent examinee can also become more aroused due to fear, which may occur, for example, when the person is afraid that his or her honest answers will not be believed. In other words, your heart rate goes up, you sweat and breath heavier for reasons other than lying. Polygraphs therefore do not weed out false positives. That decision is instead left to the subjective opinion of the person giving the polygraph. Moreover, a suspect may admit having guilty knowledge but nevertheless deny guilt. This happens when the suspect admits being present but denies the specific alleged acts, for example in an alleged sexual assault where the suspect admits the sexual acts but claims that they were consensual. Most field studies have been carried out using the Control Question Test (CQT) technique, which compares responses to specific questions about the crime (relevant questions) with responses to control questions, which are expected to arouse anxiety but to a lesser extent than the relevant questions. Overall field studies show the CQT polygraph technique catches guilty suspects in 83 per cent to 89 per cent of cases. But innocent suspects do less well, with between 11 per cent and 47 per cent being classified as guilty. In light of present scientific evidence the Department of Justice continues to agree with the conclusion of the Committee on Governmental Operations of the House of Representatives, which held after extensive hearings in 1965: There is no "lie detector." The polygraph machine is not a "lie detector," nor does the operator who interprets the graphs detect "lies." The machine records physical responses which may or may not be connected with an emotional reactionand that reaction may or may not be related to guilt or innocence. Many, many physical and psychological factors make it possible for an individual to "beat" the polygraph without detection by the machine or its operator. H.R.Rep. No. 198, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1965). Following further hearings and study, the same conclusions were reached in 1976. *The Use of Polygraphs and Similar Devices by Federal Agencies: Hearings on H.R. 795 Before the House Comm. on Government Operations*, 94 Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). And in 1988, as a result of continuing doubts about the usefulness and accuracy of polygraphs as a means of detecting deceit, Congress restricted the use of polygraphs in employment decisions. 29 U.S.C. ?? 2001 et seq.
    Answer Applies to: Wisconsin
    Replied: 5/1/2015
    Connell-Savela
    Connell-Savela | Jason Savela
    You should sit down with an attorney before making that decision. Lie detectors tests are often used to convince a person to make a statement or confession in a case with the suggestion that the test showed they lied. This may be a lie by the officer or it may be a faulty test. Either way, the statement is admissible. Lie detectors are inherently unreliable.
    Answer Applies to: Colorado
    Replied: 5/1/2015
    Law Office of James E. Smith
    Law Office of James E. Smith | James Smith
    A lie detector test can clear you if you pass and has no consequence if you don't pass.
    Answer Applies to: Nevada
    Replied: 5/1/2015
    Law Office of John G. Galasso | John George Galasso
    I never tell anyone to submitt to a lie detector test; They are not admissible in court; If the police have enough evidence of a crime, they will charge you; Sounds like they are on a fishing expedition
    Answer Applies to: Ohio
    Replied: 5/1/2015
    Chambers Law Firm
    Chambers Law Firm | Dan E. Chambers
    No, you should not.
    Answer Applies to: California
    Replied: 5/1/2015
Click to View More Answers:
12 3 Free Legal QuestionsConnect with a local attorney