I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

---

1. You are free to ask for a lawyer, and you are likewise free to keep your yap shut.

2. Polygraphs are unreliable and not admissible in court.

From what I've been told, polygraphs can be very misleading.

Some years ago when there was a Circle K convenience store across the street from the back door of the Dixie Chicken and behind the Front Porch House, I was talking to Maurice, the manager of the Circle K, one day and he said that they couldn't get new workers. He said that every new employee had to pass a polygraph given to them at their own expense in Austin and that ever since they had changed polygraph companies, not a single prospective employee had passed the exam. 100% failure rates.

I wouldn't trust polygraphs to help at all. At best, they might convince someone to talk, but at worst they might easily clear the actual criminals and take them out of consideration.

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

Because 99.99% of people being interrogated should just shut the **** up and not say anything. At all.

eric76 said:

---

From what I've been told, polygraphs can be very misleading.

Some years ago when there was a Circle K convenience store across the street from the back door of the Dixie Chicken and behind the Front Porch House, I was talking to Maurice, the manager of the Circle K, one day and he said that they couldn't get new workers. He said that every new employee had to pass a polygraph given to them at their own expense in Austin and that ever since they had changed polygraph companies, not a single prospective employee had passed the exam. 100% failure rates.

I wouldn't trust polygraphs to help at all. At best, they might convince someone to talk, but at worst they might easily clear the actual criminals and take them out of consideration.

---

Private mployers cannot require employees or perspective employees to take a polygraph. Been illegal for decades. Some government agencies like police departments and the CIA can.

torrid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

From what I've been told, polygraphs can be very misleading.

Some years ago when there was a Circle K convenience store across the street from the back door of the Dixie Chicken and behind the Front Porch House, I was talking to Maurice, the manager of the Circle K, one day and he said that they couldn't get new workers. He said that every new employee had to pass a polygraph given to them at their own expense in Austin and that ever since they had changed polygraph companies, not a single prospective employee had passed the exam. 100% failure rates.

I wouldn't trust polygraphs to help at all. At best, they might convince someone to talk, but at worst they might easily clear the actual criminals and take them out of consideration.

---

Private mployers cannot require employees or perspective employees to take a polygraph. Been illegal for decades. Some government agencies like police departments and the CIA can.

---

I didn't know that. Thanks.

This was in the mid to late 1970s. About 1978 or so.

Edit: I looked it up. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act was from 2001 or so.

Wikipedia says 1988, but I thought it went back further than that.

Still, think about it. Who in their right mind would drive 100 to take a polygraph, at their own expense, to get a job at a convenience store? I guess desperate people who can't pass a polygraph test.

edit - Or maybe it was a screening test for people skills. Anyone able to outsmart the polygraph should be able to handle having a gun being pointed at them at 3 AM.

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

Most interrogations occur when an individual is not under arrest so a lawyer is not needed. However, during the interrogation, if an individual admits to wrong doing, that is when a lawyer should get involved and the individual should stay silent. That is when the subject is suppose to be given his/her Miranda rights

Anytime law enforcement gives an individual the Miranda rights, a lawyer needs to be present..

torrid said:

---

Wikipedia says 1988, but I thought it went back further than that.

Still, think about it. Who in their right mind would drive 100 to take a polygraph, at their own expense, to get a job at a convenience store? I guess desperate people who can't pass a polygraph test.

---

You are right. 1988.

I misinterpreted a link from 2001 as meaning that the act was from then.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/polygraph

Quote:

---

Applicable Laws and Regulations

Law

29 USC 2001 - Employee Polygraph Protection Act

---

But the link takes you to https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/poly01.pdf

Quote:

---

Most interrogations occur when an individual is not under arrest so a lawyer is not needed

---

Point of clarification: Being under arrest is not the standard for Miranda. It is being in custody. Meaning ya reasonable person would not believe they had the freedom to leave.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

I'm getting chest pain reading this post.

Quote:

---

2. Polygraphs are . . . not admissible in court.

---

Except in New Mexico.

Regarding the idea of requiring a lawyer present for every interrogation, what counts as an interrogation?

Does it include when questioning witnesses at a crime scene or at an accident?

If someone is murdered on your street, should the police be required to set up appointments with all the neighbors in order to let them get a lawyer before asking if they saw anything or have security cameras? What would be gained by waiting a few days to ask questons?

Who would pay for all these lawyers?

This looks like it would be a clusterf****.

See above.

Im Gipper said:

---

See above.

---

I saw that.

Op's proposal would seem to bypass all that, but for no real benefit.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

I'm getting chest pain reading this post.

---

eric76 said:

---

Regarding the idea of requiring a lawyer present for every interrogation, what counts as an interrogation?

Does it include when questioning witnesses at a crime scene or at an accident?

If someone is murdered on your street, should the police be required to set up appointments with all the neighbors in order to let them get a lawyer before asking if they saw anything or have security cameras? What would be gained by waiting a few days to ask questons?

Who would pay for all these lawyers?

This looks like it would be a clusterf****.

---

It seems like a pain until the police think you are acting suspiciously and come up with a narrative that you are the guilty party and set out to prove it.

Rex Racer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Regarding the idea of requiring a lawyer present for every interrogation, what counts as an interrogation?

Does it include when questioning witnesses at a crime scene or at an accident?

If someone is murdered on your street, should the police be required to set up appointments with all the neighbors in order to let them get a lawyer before asking if they saw anything or have security cameras? What would be gained by waiting a few days to ask questons?

Who would pay for all these lawyers?

This looks like it would be a clusterf****.

---

It seems like a pain until the police think you are acting suspiciously and come up with a narrative that you are the guilty party and set out to prove it.

---

Just ask Richard Jewell.

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

No reason to force a lawyer to be present. And believe me many times when I was investigating a case a lawyer made it worse for their client. The suspect has the choice and is presented with that choice.
Polygraphs are virtually meaningless. They're more to get an idea if someone actually is a suspect but they're not admissible and failing one means little, as does passing one.

HTownAg98 said:

---

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

Because 99.99% of people being interrogated should just shut the **** up and not say anything. At all.

---

I would agree with this and have given this advice to family members. There are some times it does benefit you to speak to the police. There's an old saying - never motivate a cop.

HTownAg98 said:

---

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

Because 99.99% of people being interrogated should just shut the **** up and not say anything. At all.

---

There are many "How to" books on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377

ts5641 said:

---

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

ETA: I'll hang up and listen

---

No reason to force a lawyer to be present. And believe me many times when I was investigating a case a lawyer made it worse for their client. The suspect has the choice and is presented with that choice.
Polygraphs are virtually meaningless. They're more to get an idea if someone actually is a suspect but they're not admissible and failing one means little, as does passing one.

---

The purpose of polygraph test is not to establish guilt or innocence. It's to create an atmosphere of intimidation and see what shakes loose.

edit - More on this. When I went to visit the Air & Space Museum annex at Dulles, I killed waiting for the place to open by driving around the area. I found an office complex across the highway that was obviously a secure government facility. Turns out it was where the CIA did all their recruiting and employment screening. I found an anti-polygraph forum where several people openly discussed their experiences interviewing there. I'm guessing people who didn't get hired.

Anyway, of course they all had to take lie detector tests. From what they said, the polygraph exams were not simple "are you a sleeper agent for the KGB" questions with yes/no answers.

Instead, it was a Kobayashi Maru test. They seemed to assume that everyone taking the test, if not lying was at least being deceptive in some manner. I would say that is a fair assumption for anyone. The whole point was to make you nervous and catch you in a deception of some kind. It might be some minor detail of your personal life that you were reluctant to discuss. Am I a furrie? Certainly not. Well not anymore. I used to do that kind of stuff, but I stopped doing it. Two weeks ago.

They used what you were being deceptive about to judge your personality and potentially judge what else you may be withholding or lying about. I can't imagine polygraph tests administered by the police are any different. It's more to see how you act during the test than the specific answers you give.

torrid said:

---

dds08 said:

---

I rarely watch these shows. It makes it hard to sleep at night. On a recent watch, a few thoughts occurred to me:

1. Why don't they make it mandatory to have a lawyer present during all interrogations. (the alternative is taking candy from a baby or a forced untrue confession mucks everything up)

2. Why isn't polygraph (with a lawyer present) during interrogations not a thing. If it is, why isn't it done more often. I think it'd be kind of revolutionary.

---

1. You are free to ask for a lawyer, and you are likewise free to keep your yap shut.

2. Polygraphs are unreliable and not admissible in court.

---

1. Police know how to artfully lead the person to believe that things will go better for him if he talks.

2. Polygraph results are not admissible but not totally unreliable. They are somewhat reliable. A smart lawyer will get his client to take one but let no one know about it. If he flunks at least the lawyer will know his client is probably lying. If he passes he can show it to the prosecutor with clients permission. May then get his case dismissed. Polygraphs are a good tool even if not admissible in Court.

Polygraphs are not lie detector tests. That's just the name and the disguise. It is simply an enhanced interrogation technique.

birdman said:

---

Polygraphs are not lie detector tests. That's just the name and the disguise. It is simply an enhanced interrogation technique.

---

I disagree. They are rarely if ever used for enhanced interrogation. Police don't use them much at all