Do many Sheriff's departments still use polygraph test in their hiring process?
964714
Most all law enforcement organizations use lie detector tests in the hiring process.
230476
In California, the employing agency can request a drug test if they have a reasonable suspicion of drug use.  \n\nOfficers involved in deadly force incidents are generally asked to submit to a drug test.\n\nEmployers can ask employees to submit to a test as a condition of an assignment.  An officer wishing to work in, or continuing to work in, a narcotics task force, might well be asked to submit to a test before the assignment or at any time during the assignment.  An officer who refuses, in the absence of some kind of reasonable suspicion, will likely be denied the assignment or removed from it if already there.\n\nScheduling some kind of testing is most likely an arrangement to decided upon during negotiations with the employer.  Most agencies don't...in fact, I don't think I know of any who do.
546237
All actions are detailed in your probation agreement that you signed.  If there is a question on a polygraph and it is not on the agreement, you can request a hearing before the judge to explain why you feel you do not want to take a polygraph.  If you did nothing wrong, just take the polygraph.  Refusing to follow instructions from your PO is just asking for problems.
520610
Yes, in most states they are POST certified as law enforcement but do not have police or power of arrest except on state property.  In some areas ( I know in GA) they have been used as police during the US Olympics when they were held there, and also have been used in some undercover drug work.
1156900
None here. They all get hair follice drug tests regularly, just like most other departments.
192771
Most lkely not, But it really wouldn't surprise me to find out they do. I would suggest getting in touch with the local sheriff and find out.
80407
Who is doing the test, and why is it being done?\nI do not do polygraph tests, however, I have had clients take them.  Usual protocol is for the examiner to ask what medications the subject has taken.  If the examiner does not ask, volunteer the information.  The test itself takes readings of blood pressure, respiration, etc., which may be affected by the medication, and therefore throw off the results.\nThe real question is what the mental disorder is, and whether it would affect the ability of the subject to tell truth from fiction.  \nThe polygraph is designed to show when the subject is stating something the subject knows is untrue.  If the subject "knows" men from Mars are controlling his thoughts, he will show as truthful when asked if he knows whether there is life on Mars.
317722
You could still be hired.  Be very carefull when asked about your criminal and citation record to disclose it all when asked or filling out the application.  Manytimes they are looking for lies on the application or during the interview and do not consider past criminal and citation records if disclosed.  If not disclosed they would consider you lying.
466365
I would never hire anyone that I found had lied on their resume, especially in the case of a degree, or prior felonies, or convictions.  So, yes, they should be declined the job opportunity.  Honesty is the best policy.  \n\nIf the individual was well qualified, but say had a felony conviction as a teen, and nothing since, and it has been 10 years, and they disclosed that info, sure - give them the benefit of the doubt.
784500
I used to get pulled over all the time. I couldn't walk a mile without getting searched when I was young. I grew up poor, grew my hair long. So the cops assumed that was enough of a reason. Or I'd be in  a high crime neighborhood. Didn't matter that I LIVED there. Just that they stopped folks in that neighborhood. Also been in roadblocks where my car got extra special searching just for looking poor.
491583
I would imagine so. Not the hard core stuff, but checking if you're a wanted criminal or something... that I'm pretty sure they do.
340039
Most places are concerned with felony charges, or violent misdemeanors. It will show on your record if checked, but may not disqualify you for a job. You do not have to select felony, because you didn't have one, but never misrepresent yourself on an application. Misdemeanors do show on criminal reports. I worked in staffing for 2 years, so trust me - don't lie!  Most places would rather hire you if you are honest than if you try to lie about it. It makes you look unaccountable and irresponsible to lie about it.
251703
polygraphs are insubmissible (sp?) in court. It's not hard (if you know what you are doing) to beat one of those tests. Talk to a lawyer and ask his opinion.\n\nCharles Manson passed lie detector tests.. that says how easy they are to beat.\n\n*not saying to try and beat it, I'm saying that is why they are not allowed in court
777255
OK, here's the deal on the polygraph. They do NOT just ask you questions out of the blue. They will have 10 to 15 questions that they will discuss with you before the exam. Answer them truthfully. Once the examiner decides that everything has been discussed. The test will begin. They will ask what they call base line questions. Your name age whatever. They will tell you to respond to all questions asked for the baseline to be yes or no, depending on the examiner. The examiner will probably show you the response to your false answers. This is to show you that the test does in fact work. Kinda like messing with your head.\n In the case of drug use, the question will be something along the lines " other than the incidents that were discussed, have you ever used....." They will not ask the discussed questions in the same order as when they are discussed to keep you a bit off balance.\n\nThe polygraph is NEVER like what you see on TV\n\nGood Luck!
953379
Unless you are going for some federal positions experimental use of pot is completely acceptable. Contrary to what most people above have stated- DO NOT deny it or play dumb, agencies don't care if smoked a joint in high school, they want to know that your being honest, and if you have to go up angainst a polygraph, they will try to verify past criminal activities including drug use. And before people start putting out retarded "how to beat a lie detector" solutions here, don't bother, you won't beat it, and it's easier to just tell the truth, especially with something as minor as a little weed a decade ago.
895397
I think they do. \n\nI will tell you the same thing my Father told me years ago (he was a veteran policeman), he said never to take a polygraph test because it is not a science and there are too many variables that may be perceived as if you are guilty of things you have not actually done.  He also said that certain types of criminals and mentally ill people will not show as telling lies because they know how to take the test or they are so mentally ill they actually think they have not done anything wrong.\n\nAlso, there are the variables of the person who is giving the test and who is in the room when the test is given...and the health and attitude of the person being tested.
854201
I can almost guarantee you live in Maricopa County (Phoenix).  The reason I say that is that I am a licensed bail bond agent and have bailed out many for the charge of "Failure to Show Identification/Driver's License to Law Enforcement Officer".  \n\nHowever, according to current federal law (and I apologize but I am quoting Wikipedia because it does explain it well; link below).\n\n"Unless an individual locality (city, town, county, township, etc.) has passed a "stop and identify" statute, persons stopped in states not listed above are seemingly still not obligated to identify themselves when detained by police."\n\nThe Supreme Court Case this refers to is Hiibel v. Sixth  Judicial District Court of Nevada.  Again, I quote, "The Hiibel case does not compel a person to show identification to a police officer upon demand. As of 2005, Americans are not compelled to carry identification (unless they are driving a car or performing another action that requires a license in that state).\n\nThe Hiibel case does not create a federal law that requires a person to give his or her name to a police officer upon request; it merely rules that states may issue such a law, and such a law is not unconstitutional. If a state does not have such a law, then people in that state are not required to give their names."\n\nMost police officers get around this by saying they have probable cause or are doing a "warrant check".  So far, in Arizona, they have been getting away with this.  Check out the link to see what states actually have a law on stop and identify statutes.\n\nThe Hiibel case only applies when a person is detained due to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If no such reasonable suspicion exists, the person is not required to provide his or her name.