7th Circuit: Indiana SO program violates constitutional protection

This topic contains 10 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Charlie Charlie 2 months, 1 week ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #54963 Reply
    Avatar
    admin

    By Marilyn Odendahl . . . Finding the disclosures provide information that any law enforcement agent “would love to have,” the 7th Circuit Court of Ap
    [See the full post at: 7th Circuit: Indiana SO program violates constitutional protection]

  • #54986 Reply
    Avatar
    anonymous

    i wonder could that be used in some way to put a stop to stupid polygraphing for RC on probation and parole ?. after it is kinda the same thing right.

    • #55083 Reply
      Avatar
      d

      They always say “you signed an agreement when you were in prison to get out early and it included the polygraphs”, and this somehow is not compelled speech, even though you will go back to jail if you do not take the test. My answer to this, however, is if you don’t agree to the tests you have to stay in prison and this is very compelling. So basically a judge who actually cares about the constitution did not get the case in front of them yet. Someday I hope to see this ugly unconstitutional violating practice disappear. There was a police officer doing the testing in our city. He was getting $350 each time from everyone in the program. I hear he has quite a nice lifestyle making all this extra cash. I had just won my case in appeals court so I figured it was time to celebrate and had too many at the bar that night with a supportive friend. Long story short the supreme court of my state found a way to rob me of my innocents, and I found myself still on probation when the tests came around again. I passed the test anyway I simply kept telling myself they don’t have the right to force me to answer these questions so my answers do not matter, and I guess it worked.

  • #55010 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    This article does have something missing and yes I’m sure glad those in the know are beginning to understand. Who wants to self incriminate themself. Who even likes taking polygraph tests.

    My last polygraph test was a humm dinger. They had ask me a question about masterbation or if I ever did that along with other questions to get my goat so to speak. Sure I was under pressure so I just said on the test that the bible says all lie. After the test I waited for the results and the PO said I could go. Two wrongs don’t make a right and this shadowing effect or watch dog is a bit out of line with man’s device. Talk about morals.

    I was under the impressing one went to jail for stealing. Well who steals the conscience of another. Sure everyone on the face of the earth has did bad things but to incriminate by slight of hand or some crafty servant of God is a bit much . Now I don’t like to use psychology as sooner or later those authorities will make fruitcakes out of one if one lets them.

    Law enforcment has their own rules or God/Justice system. if you would like to call it and they go by their rules which still make some slaves to the system. Taking away someone’s good time is a bit much even labeling is a man made device.. I guess law enforcment never heard the judge not or you will be judged. Amending is better or banishing a lot of this sox registry.

  • #55024 Reply
    Avatar
    Dave C

    They will certainly use the information from polygraphs against you. I was given a state sentence due to a ridiculous probation violation. They said due to my sexual history I was a greater threat to society because of previous admissions I made that I was forced to admit, so I was given 4 years in state prison.

    Don’t believe anything they say. They can and will use polygraph admissions against you.

    • #55030 Reply
      Avatar
      citizen

      They can violate your probation by polygraph results. Probation hearings don’t necessarily follow the same rules as trial because they aren’t a new trial. They can charge you with a crime based upon the results of a polygraph if the grand jury sees those results as a sufficient evidence to charge you with a crime. What they can not do is use the results of a polygraph against you in a trial by jury or bench.
      So, failing a polygraph can still have legal consequences as it pertains to anything outside of a trial. All other scopes are permissible even if they are reckless, they are permissible. Grand jury’s can charge you with murder for stepping on a grasshopper if they so choose. However, it will not stand in court.
      The issue at hand with polygraphs is they are an attempt to force you to self incriminate and they are being used as tool to exact punishment in a broader scope than the court ordered. In some cases, as I know it, people receive extra time past their statute per loss of good time and so forth, when they are found in violation.

  • #55053 Reply
    Avatar
    Dustin

    One thing everyone seems to be overlooking is the invalidity of polygraphs.

    Polygraphs aren’t “passed” or “failed.” They’re nothing more than the subjective (at times, arbitrary) opinion of the test administrator. Courts restrict their use in any proceeding other than SO parole/ probation revocation hearings purportedly due to the “lack of consensus in the scientific community” regarding accuracy. But even that is misleading, as there is not ONE SINGLE medical or mental health organization that endorses the accuracy of polygraphs as “lie detectors.” Virtually all of them, in fact, have have quoted and agreed with the National Academy of Science’s determination that their accuracy roughly equivalent to a coin flip.

    The only organizations that claim reliable accuracy are law enforcement and polygraph organizations themselves. But even they deliberately overlook claims of lie detection and attempt to highlight their use as “investigation aids.” But in regards to registrants, they are never used as such – a “failed” exam is treated as gospel and responded to accordingly. The last thing any PO or court wants to do is investigate a polygrapher’s opinion and find it wrong, particularly if they ordered or requested the failure because the parolee / probationer pissed them (the POs) off.

    Which all should beg the question – Since courts know polygraphs are junk science at best, why do they order them? And why exclusively to those on the registry? Very seldom, if ever, do they order polygraphs on any other type of offender. And the legal issue regarding who specifically requires “passing” polygraphs between the courts and “treatment” providers is often murky.

    The only answer I can come up with is to create additional unnecessary burdens to parolees / probationers and ensure that they spend the majority of the supervision period running in and out of jail / prison.

    • #55077 Reply
      Avatar
      Dave C

      The scam is simple.
      They do not violate you for failing the polygraph they dismiss you from group because you failed the polygraph. The dismissal from group then becomes the violation.
      You can never be honest in group. Only admit to what they arrested you for. Everything else can and will be used against you. I spent 4 years in state prison due to a report from a polygraph which was taken totally out of context.

      The polygraph purpose is to get you to admit something. That admission then will be used against you. Either in the form of a probation violation or a possible new arrest.

      If a polygraph is supposed to be therapy, why is it given to probation officers?

      The polygraph is a probation violation device.

      The polygraph is also very expensive and these ex-cops are making a fortune off SO’s.

      For therapeutic community, SOs are a gold mine.

      Justice HaHa. Its all about money in the end.

      • #55084 Reply
        Avatar
        citizen

        Polygraphs are always arbitrary… They are at the purest explanation an interpretation of the physical reactions attributed to a persons response to a question. A simple understanding of how we process stimuli a species would make it seem ludicrous to claim them as solid proof of anything except a certain question caused a subject to have a certain physical reaction.
        The fact that these are bogus should be clear to anyone who study’s them and to state that they are bogus just feels redundant. However, I agree that anyone who doesn’t know yet should know that polygraphs are a cops gimmick to get you to confess.
        Courts do not order polygraphs for trial purposes nor do they order them for any matter. They only allow them to be used in non-court actions such as investigations and court mandated treatment. The later is a reach for abuse of power, because the court ordered a treatment that employs the use of something insincere in it’s nature.
        The result we need to vie for is an appellate or supreme court decision that the use of polygraphs are unconstitutional practices for probation and parole and any court mandated treatment. Just like it would be unconstitutional to mandate that a man undergo chemical castration.
        It seems that Indiana courts have provided the first step in this direction.

        • #55322 Reply
          Charlie
          Charlie
          Moderator

          A person I spoke with said the judge in their case “interpreted” their body language in court and made a certain negative judgment based in that which harmed the defendant. Subjective use of junk science allows a fallacy to drive the debate. Specious arguments sound real, but are facially untrue or unfounded. Yet we believe them if the offer an explanation which reinforces our established beliefs or opinions. Polys do this, body language “experts”, hand writing “experts”, etc. Makes for good drama, which is stimulating to the “audience” who wants to see the evil in a R.C.

  • #55132 Reply
    Avatar
    Ed C

    This is a very significant decision, because this is the second circuit court (to my knowledge) that has applied 5th Amendment privileges to inmates or probationers. In a precedential decision (U.S. v. Von Behren, 822 F.3d 1139, (10th. Cir., 2016)), the 10th Circuit determined one does not need to answer questions that might be incriminating. The distinguishing factor between the cases is that Von Behren was on federal supervised release, and was threatened with expulsion from therapy which would violate his conditions of release.

    It is a decision worth reading. Even nonspecific polygraph questions that might simply imply a “propensity” to commit a crime were deemed compelled self-incrimination. The decision is not carte blanche to refuse a polygraph or to avoid all questions. A person must explicitly invoke the right regarding a specific incriminating question.

    I once brought the decision up with my federal PO, who was seriously annoyed that I might invoke this right. After attempted intimidation through explicit and implicit threats, he finally settled on questions that pertained only to my conditions of release.

Reply To: 7th Circuit: Indiana SO program violates constitutional protection
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version