antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.
does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?
What are you asking, anatagon? If a polygraph test result would support a probable cause for arrest warrant? The answer is no. Such warrants have to be supported by admissible evidence...but a search warrant does not. "Reasonable suspicion" is the standard for searches...I suppose a failed polygraph would suffice, but off-hand I can think of no case where a search was authorized on a warrant application supported only by polygraph results.
I have a feeling many judges would be reluctant to sign such an application, even though it at least seems as if it would be legally sufficient.
yeah. i was trying to picture the shitstorm that a PG could stir up. doesn't seem too bad. i guess it could tip investigators off. they could build a framework to color in with evidence if you let them interview you with a device which could tell what you are telling the truth about and even what makes you uncomfortable.