PAGENO="0001" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Part 5-Testimony of Federal Bureau of Investigation Witnesses) L*1~J3Q HEAR ING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 25, 19(~5 ~Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations S ~Zzccp'~ SJ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1965 49-132 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois, Chairman CHET HOLIFIELD, California JACK BROOKS, Texas L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina PORTER HARDY, JR., Virginia JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland JOHN E. MOSS, California DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida HENRY S. BEUSS, Wisconsin JOHN S. MONAGAN, Connecticut TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, New Jersey WILLIAM J. RANDALL, Missouri BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York JIM WRIGHT, Texas FERNAND I. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island DAVID S. KING, Utah ~HNG. DOW, New York ff~iNRY HELSTOSKI, New Jersey CHRISTINE R4v DAVIS, Staff Director JAMES A. LANIGAN, General aunsel MILES Q. RO~I.NEY, A8sociate General Counsel I. P. CARLSON, Minority Counsel RAYMOND T. COLLINS, Minority~Professional Staff FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE JOHN E. MOSS, California, Chairman ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan OGDEN R. REID, New York DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois PORTER HARDY, JR., Virginia JOHN S. MONAGAN, Connecticut JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, New Jersey SAMUEL J. ARCHIBALD,.CIIie.f, Government Information BENNY L. itAse. Counsel JACK MAT~ESO~v, Ckief Investigator tILENNA G. D~NAT, Clerk CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio FLORENCE P. DWYER, New Jersey ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan OGDEN R. REID, New York FRANK I. HORTON, New York DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio DONALD RUMSFI~LD, Illinois WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, Alabama JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois HOWARD H. CALLAWAY, Georgia JOHN W. WYDLER, New York Ii PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Testimony of John P. Mohr, Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accompanied by Ivan W. Conrad, Assistant Director, and Bell P. Herndon, special agent supervisor Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by- Conrad, Ivan W., Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion: Principal sources from the bibliography providing background of physiological factors Kass, Benny L., counsel, Foreign Operations and Government In- formation Subcommittee: Excerpt from Federal Bureau of Investigation Manual Excerpt from polygraph examination of Jack Ruby Form-Consent to interview with polygraph Mohr, John P., Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investi- gation: Requests to use the polygraph examination Moss, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman, Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee: Federal Bureau of Investigation func- tional organization chart Index APPENDIXES (Exhibits 1 through 34 appear in parts 1-4 of these hearings) Exhibits 35A-35J-State statutes and codes relating to polygraphs and other lie detection devices Exhibit 35A-Alaska, laws of Alaska, 1964 Exhibit 35B-California Exhibit 35C-Illinois Exhibit 35D-Illinois Exhibit 35E-Rentucky Exhibit 35F-Massachusetts Exhibit 35G-New Mexico Exhibit 35H-Oregon Exhibit 351-Rhode Island Exhibit 35J-Washington Exhibit 36-Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, appendix XVII : Polygraph examination of Jack Ruby Exhibit 37-Reply from the Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation Exhibit 38-Supplemental report, Federal Bureau of Investigation, March 27, 1964 Exhibit 39-Letter from U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Hon. John E. Moss, April 21, 1964 Exhibit 40-Letter from U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Hon. John E. Moss, May 24, 1965 Exhibit 41-Letter from Benny L. Kass, subcommittee counsel, to Henry Wade, district attorney, Dallas, Tex Exhibit 42-Excerpt from Federal Bureau of Investigation Manual Exhibit 43-Federal Bureau of Investigation training for polygraph ex- aminers Exhibit 44-Supplemental data on use of polygraph by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Pag. 514 531 525 540 527 544 518 577 549 549 549 549 554 555 558 558 560 560 561 561 567 570 570 571 571 571 572 574 UI PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Part 5-Testimony of Federal Bureau of Investigation Witnesses) TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, ~ Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., in room 2203, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives John E. Moss, John S. Monagan, and Donald Rumsfeld. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, chief, Government Informa- tion; Benny L. Kass, counsel; and Jack Matteson, chief investigator. Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will be in order. We resume our inquiry today into the use of polygraphs by agencies and departments of the Federal Government. This is a continuation of studies commenced in the last Congress. The information we seek here in the subcommittee is essential to final evaluation and a final report by the subcommittee. Our witnesses today are representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we will first hear from Mr. John P. Mohr, Assistant to the Director. He is accompanied by Mr. Ivan W. Conrad, an Assistant Director, and Mr. Bell P. Herndon, special agent supervisor of the FBI. All three of you gentlemen are going to testify here today; is that correct? Mr. MOHR. Yes, sir. Mr. Moss. Will you stand and be sworn together? (Thereupon, John P. Mohr, Ivan W. Conrad, and Bell P. Herndon were duly sworn by the chairman of the committee, and testified as follows:) - Mr. Moss. Will y"~ f for the record? 1a 513 PAGENO="0006" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" TESTIMONY OP JOHN P. MOHR, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; ACCOMPANIED BY IVAN W. CONRAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND BELL P. HERNDON, SPECIAL AGENT SUPERVISOR Mr. MOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has endeavored to be of all possible assistance to the subcommittee staff and has previously furnished detailed information concerning the FBI's use of the polygraph. The FBI uses the polygraph as an investigative aid in carefully selected cases involving criminal and security violations in which the FBI has jurisdiction. All persons interviewed with the polygraph are advised of their constitutional rights and are required to sign voluntary waivers indicating their willingness to be interviewed with this device. The FBI does not use the polygraph in interviewing job applicants or in personnel screening. Requests to use the ~ polygraph originate with the special agent in charge of the Field Division where the subject is under investigation. These requests are reviewed and passed on by the Assistant Director level at the seat of government, reviewed at the Assistant to the Director level, and finally approved by the Associate Director. During the course of a polygraph examination, the examiner, where appropriate, inform.s the testee that he appears to be deceiving with regard to a question or questions to allow foilowup interrogation or additional investigation. However, the person is not informed of the final opinions or results of the examination. The physical and mental condition of each person to be tested is considered to determine suitability to take such a test. The FBI does not use the polygraph for personnel screening and in this context the right of appeal is not applicable. However, in our usage of the polygraph, if a person requests a reexamination, it would be given if a logical reason existed to do so. Polygraph data of the FBI is maintained in the substantive in- vestigative case files and, therefore, is of a confidential character under Departmental Order 324-64 dated October 8, 1964-previously Dçpartmental Order 3229. During the fiscal year 1964, the FBI handled 666,982 investigative matters with the polygraph technique utilized in 593 investigative matters or in 0.09 percent investigations or less than one-tenth of 1 percent. A total of 1,155 persons were examined in the 593 investi- gative matters. At the present tithe the FBI has 44 trained polygraph examiners, but only 36 actually conduct polygraph examinations. Only a small portion of the time of the special agents who actually conduct poiy- graph examinations is spent on this work. It is estimated that $18,500, or 3 percent of the total annual salary cost of the trained examiners was allocated to this work in the fiscal year 1964. The minimum qualifications for FBI polygraph examiners arc as follows: Age: The actual minimum age of an agent trained as a polygraph examiner has been age 30. The majority of our examiners were I I 514 PAGENO="0007" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 515 between 35 and 45 when trained and we only consider mature and experienced agents. Education : All special agent examiners have a minimum of a 4-year resident college degree and many have advanced degrees. Grade or rank : The trainee must be a special agent. Years of investigative experience : Actual minimum experience has been 5 years for two trainees, while the rest of the examiners had at least 10 years investigative experience prior to polygraph training. Other requirements : All candidates for polygraph training must be recommended by their field special agent in charge and must have demonstrated excellent interrogation ability. In addition, the following written qualifications have been furnished our field offices to be used when selecting special agents for polygraph training: One, broad investigative experience with demonstrated ability for thorough interrogation. Two, marked proficiency in planning and conducting interviews with particular reference to alertness and facility in thought. Three, academic training in psychology, physiology, law, social sciences, or previous training and experience with the polygraph. Four, ability to gain confidence of others and handle people under difficult circumstances with such personal characteristics as maturity, stability of temperament, good judgment, and initiative. Five, genuine interest in receiving training and developing skill in scientific interrogation techniques. Six, fluency in speaking a foreign language~ The initial intensive training is given by our own experts and lasts 2 weeks following which the examiners undergo on-the-job training for 1 year under close supervision of the seat of government and in the field during which time each of their examinations is reviewed by a qualified supervisor. Advanced training seminars are conducted on a regional basis in the field for polygraph examiners. The FBI presently has 48 polygraph instruments, 9 of which re- present experimental, research, and training equipment. The esti- mated annual maintenance cost is under $100. Maintenance is per- formed by our own personnel. The FBI's official position with regard to the polygraph results is that although the polygraph is often referred to as a "lie detector," it is not in fact such a device. The instrument is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses which may indicate decep- tion when properly. evaluated by the examiner. Responses observed during a polygraph test can and may be prompted by various factors. The polygraph examiner must be extremely skilled, conservative, and objective. The FBI feels that the polygraph technique is not suffi- ciently precise to permit absolute judgments of guilt or nonguilt without qualifications. The polygraph is used as an investigative aid and the results are considered within the context of a complete investigation. The polygraph can be helpful to implement an interrogation and provide investigative direction, but the FBI does not rely on it solely or use it as a substitute for logical investigation. In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on the recommenda- tions of the full committee as published in your recent House Report No. 198. PAGENO="0008" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" The FBI wishes to point out that we have used the polygraph only as an aid to investigation in selected national security and criminal cases, and not in applicant and general personnel screening. The FBI does not use two-way mirrors and recording devices during polygraph examinations. In our experience and judgment, the polygraph technique does not lend itself to accurate pinpointing of percentage validity. However, with proper ethics by the polygraph examiner and tight administrative control by the user agency, there is no question but that the polygraph can be a valuable investigative aid to supplement interrogation in selected criminal and national security cases. This, of course, is the manner in which the polygraph is used by the FBI. From the information we have presented to the subcommittee, the FBI firmly believes that it meets or exceeds the recommendations of the committee. Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Mohr. Mr. Rumsf old? Mr. RUMSFELD. ~ I have no questions. Mr. Moss. Mr. Kass? Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, are you a polygraph operator? Mr. MOHE. No, I am not. Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, are you a polygraph operator? Mr. CONRAD. I am qualified to give polygraph examinations. Mr. KASS. Mr. Herndon, are you a polygraph operator? Mr. HERNDON. I am qualified to give polygraph examinations. Mr. KAss. Is your title "polygraph operator"? Mr. HERNDON. I am a special agent. But I could be considered a polygraph supervisor at. the present time, supervisor in the polygraph program. Mr. KASS. Mr. Herndon, Mr. Mohr stated that there is no such thing as a "lie detector," or at least he said the machine is not a lie detector. Is there such a thing as a lie detector? Mr. HERNDON. Not to my knowledge. There has never been anything on the market that has been scientifically proven to be a lie detector, per se. And our Director has made that comment in testimony in previous hearings with other committees many years ago. Mr. KAss. What, then, does the operator of the polygraph do? Mr. HERNDON. Well, he proceeds with a carefully controlled interrogation and; in an effort to determine whether or not a person is deceiving, he will attempt to evaluate certain physiological responses which we know in some areas could indicate or possibly accompany deception. Mr. KASS. Is there a physiological response for a lie? Mr. HERNDON. There are many factors with regard to a lie, and, of course, physiological responses will vary with individuals. So I can't give you one set answer. Mr. ICASS. What type of polygraphs does the FBI use? Mr. HERNDON. By type, do you mean manufacturer? Mr. KASS. Yes, sir. Mr. HERNDON. We don't endorse or recommend any particular manufacturer. We use and have both the current Associated Research Keeler models and also the C. H. Stoelting model polygraphs. Mr. KASS. These are the standard type of polygraphs? I 516 PAGENO="0009" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 517 Mr. HERNDON. They are well accepted in the modern practice of polygraph use. Mr. KASS. They record what functions? Mr. IIERNDON. Basically, these instruments record three functions. The pneumogram, the GSR, or galvanic skin response, and the car- diogram. Mr. KASS. You stated the FBI uses the polygraph for selected national security type cases. What criteria do you have to determine whether the polygraph will be used? Mr. MOHR. Mr. Kass, it would depend on the type of case. As I have indicated, we try to be extremely selective in the use of the polygraph. We have what we think are excellent controls to make sure that the polygraph is used in situations where we think it would be beneficial. And I might say that when we consider the work of the FBI, we consider all of it as being important; our investigative activity is considered to be of a high rank and we don't necessarily categorize any particular case. The principal determining factor, as I indicated, would be whether there would be any beneficial results that could be gained by the use of the polygraph in a particular situation. Mr. KASS. Who makes this decision? Mr. MOHR. The initial decision would probably originate with the investigative agent, who handles the case in the field. He would then take it up with his supervisor, and the supervisor in turn would make a recommendation to the special agent in charge, and then it would be transmitted to the seat of government, where again a special agent supervisor, who is supervising the substantive case here, would consider it and then refer the matter to his assistant director, and then to the Assistant to the Director, and finally to Mr. Clyde Tolson, the Associate Director, who would make the final decision. There are some cases where the Director would make a final decision. Mr. KASS. So that the policy of the FBI is that just the Associate Director or the Director would make the decision in each and every case? Mr. MOHR. That is correct, in each and every case. Mr. KASS. Is this a recent development in the FBI? Mr. MORn. Prior to, I believe, 1963, the Assistant to the Director made the decision and thereafter the Associate Director. Mr. KASS. For the record, who is the Assistant to the Director? Mr. MOHR. Mr. Alan H. Belmont. Mr. KASS. Where is he, in terms of organization? Mr. Moun. He is directly under the Associate Director. Mr. Moss. Let us enter in the record the organizational chart of the FBI. (See p. 518.) Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, I haven't clear in my mind the criteria the Associate Director would use. What would determine whether he would authorize the polygraph examination to be given? Are there specific instructions or specific written or unwritten guidelines? Mr. Moun. Yes. We~Il, not for him, no. We have provided the committee with the requirements that the field must submit to the seat of government, in order to get approval for the use of the poly- graph. 49-132---65-pt. 5-~2 PAGENO="0010" 518 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" FBI FUNCTiONAL ORGANIZATION CHART Mr. KASS. But what does the Associate Director look at in trying to make his decision? Mr. MoR~ Well, he would- Mr. KASS. Can you give us an example? Mr. MOUR. Give you what? Mr. KASS. Can you give the committee an example of a hypo- thetical case, where the polygraph would not be used, and a hypothet- ical case where the Associate Director would make a decision to use the polygraph? Mr. MOHR. To give an extreme example would be where the person to be examined is one who, shall we say, is mentally disturbed, or the investigation has shown he is mentally incompetent. We certainly wouldn't give one to such an individual. Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, does the FBI make the determination that the person is mentally i,~ompetent? Mr. MOHIt. No, we do not. The investigative agent would con- duct an appropriate investigation to determine the overall compe- tency of the individual. That would be one of the factors he is re- quired to consider in making his initial recommendation to the seat of government. Mr. KAss. To digress for a moment on the question of mental in- competency, Mr. Herudon, can a person who is mentally incompetent take a polygraph examination? Mr. HERNDON. He can take it, but he should not. Mr. KASS. Why not? PAGENO="0011" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 519 Mr IIERNDON Eecause be is not a proper subject, suitable for polygraph interrogation. Mr. KASS. Why not? Mr. }TERNDON. Because a person who is mentally incompetent is usually-a doctor would probably answer this better than I. I am not qualified as a psychiatrist. But a person who is mentally incompetent is considered divorced from reality, and therefore it would be completely useless to interrogate a man who is divorced from reality in an effort to interpret what he is saying or his physio- logical response to what he has said. Mr. KASS. Are all persons who are mentally incompetent divorced from reality? Mr. HERNDON. Not necessarily. Mr. KAss. How would you make a determination that they were divorced from reality? Do you give a person a psychological interview prior to a polygraph examination? Mr. HERNDON. We do not. Mr. KASS. Does a psychiatrist sit in the examination room? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir; he does not. Mr. KASS. How can you make a determination that a person is mentally incompetent and is divorced from reality? Mr. HERNDON. The average interrogator, particularly in the Bureau, with 10 years of experience of interviewing thousands and thousands of people, builds up a certain commonsense approach as to whether or not this man is a reasonably intelligent person, or corn- petent, that he can properly participate in an interview. Our job is to interview a person. I think the average agent who has experience interrogating people can sense when he is talking to someone who is not mentally sound. Therefore, he would not proceed with the poly- graph interrogation. Mr. KASS. Aren't there times when a person will be in touch with reality, will be able to answer the questions, will have sufficient memory to reme~rnber what you are asking him about, and yet could be de- dared by a psychiatrist or the courts to be mentally incompetent? Mr. HEItNDON. That is very true. Mr. KASS. How do you know whether the person you are givin the examination to, how do you know in each of the 1,100-some-od cases you gave last year, for example, that the person was or was not mentally competent to take the test? Mr. HERNDON. We have some background data on these individuals, and we have had brought to our attention nothing which would mdi- cate that they are mentally unsound. In other words, we have a background investigation. This man has never been in a mental institution; his service record indicates he is perfectly normal; we have nothing to indicate-let me put it that way-that he is mentally unsound. And from everyday, commonsense interrogation pro- cedures, there is nothing to indicate this man is not competent to carry on an interview. Mr. KASS. Of these 1,100 cases you gave last year, how many of these ever finally go to court; do you know? Mr. HERNDO~. I can't answer that exactly. We do not use the polygraph as admissible evidence. It is~strictly an investigative aid. PAGENO="0012" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. KASS. I understand. But where you gave the polygraph to these 1,100 cases, how many of those people, based on all of your other investigations, were finally brought to court? Mr. HERNDON. Mr. Kass, in order to be helpful, in the fiscal year 1964, we used the polygraph in 593 investigative matters involving 1,155 persons. Statistics available reflect that in approximately 15 percent of the investigative matters, or about 90, we obtain signed statements or confessions. The majority of these will usually result in court cases. Mr. KA5S. Mr. Herndon, of those 15 percent or so that may or may not have gone to court, how many of those were declared in.. competent by the judge? Mr. HERNDON. None, to my personal knowledge, Mr. Kass. Mr. KASS. Does the Bureau keep any records as to followthrough or subsequent verification of your own results on the polygraph? Mr. HERNDON. No, I think that would be an impractical job, actually. Mr. KASS. Why? Mr. HERNDON. Because in many cases, when you render polygraph examinations, many of the people are going to be, by chance, innocent. In many instances you never know the final outcome of a particular case, whether or not that person in fact was or was not guilty or was or was not innocent. Mr. KA5S. Now, you say many of these people may be, by chance, innocent people. Could you explain this? You don't pick people up off the street and start giving polygraphs? Mr. HERNDON. Of course not. But we would naturally interrogate logical suspects in any given crime. And if you have a number of people that are considered suspects, let's say the crime was actually only committed by one person, obviously some of those people are going to be innocent, or we can presume to be innocent. Mr. KASS. Have you ever run across a situation where the poly- graph, or as a result of the polygraph examination, your polygraph operator and/or the Bureau has determined this person is guilty and in fact he subsequently turned out to be innocent? Mr. HERNDON. I have had no such case brought to my attention in that regard. Mr. KASS. Have you ever found cases the other way? Mr. HERNDON. You mean where we found people appeared to be guilty- Mr. KASS. No, where you determine they are innocent and they subsequently turned out to be guilty? Mr. HERNDON. I believe we might have had one or two instances- and I am not certain of this. We may have had an isolated case where an examiner felt that the person was not involved and later it turned out he was involved. But these situations are relatively rare. You must remember that we do not consider the polygraph tech- nique sufficiently precise. We don't expect our examiners to come up with the conclusion that subject A or subject B is guilty or not guilty. Mr. KASS. What conclusions does the polygraph operator make in the FBI? 520 PAGENO="0013" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. HERNDON. By our very trainiug, we expect our examiners, when they have completed a polygraph examination, to give it the best possible review they can, and then provide for the case agent and the Bureau what we call investigative direction. Based on their skill, their knowledge, and the interpretation of the charts, they can provide indications as to whether or not this person may be involved or may not be involved. Mr. KASS. Now, you say very careful review of the polygraph charts and the whole procedure. How long a review process is this? Mr. HERNDON. It will vary with the individual examiner, and the individual case, Mr. Kass. Mr. KASS. Can you be doing it on a running basis? Mr. HERNDON. Oh, yes. Obviously, as the man is proceeding with the examination, he is formulating certain opinions at that point. Mr. KASS. So, in other words, while you are looking at the chart, as it is moving on, you can just by your own visual observation determine whether this is an indication of deception or not? Mr. HERNDON. Possibly, in some cases. Mr. KASS. How would you determine which cases are and which cases are not? Mr. HERNDON. Depending on how the man is reacting to the specific questions that have been prepared by the examiner. Mr. KASS. Reacting on the polygraph chart? Mr. HERNDON. Well, Mr. Kass, I know you are somewhat familiar with the technique. As you proceed during the series, you have the so-called control questions, the peak-of-tension series, and, by observ- ing the reactions of the man to the specific questions, the examiner can begin to formulate possible opinions, based on the man's physio- logical reaction to the questions. Mr. Moss. The reactions you seek are those that arise from what? A guilty feeling? What is the impulse that causes a reaction to be recorded? And does the recording occur on all three of the channels of the polygraph, or may it occur on only one? Mr. HERNDON. There, again, Mr. Chairman, that is a question that could have several different answers, depending on many various factors.. Mr. Moss. If it is dependent on a guilty reaction, you must assume it is dependent on a guilty reaction, must you not, if you are inter~"t it as relating to truthfulness or the lack of I I a t sure I'~ r questior the three~ channe. ~r. il1~ based on tions, and the i is a guilty s palms to start ~, or his heartbeat to be There may be a specific physiological response, nted by the examiner, the particular ques.~ ~i on how to respond to the questions. 521 PAGENO="0014" 522 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. Moss. I am trying to get to the basic motivation. Are human beings inherently truthful? Or are they truthful in relation to the cultural background in which they are raised, their environment? Are they by nature, by instinct, truthful? Mr. }JERNDON. Mr. Chairman, that is a question perhaps a doctor of philosophy could answer better than I could. Mr. Moss. Let me make it clear. I think of all the groups we have studied, that the FBI comes the closest to using this with the care I feel it requires. There isn't the broad reliance upon it, at least there doesn't appear to be, in my studies so far. But I think these are questions which an operator must be able to answer if we are to rely upon this device to the extent it is relied upon today in private business, and in some of the departments of government, where it is an essential part of the screening procedure in the hiring of personnel. Now, you are a well-qualified, well-trained operator. And this is not in any sense an effort to embarrass you. But certainly, the nature, the inherent nature or the instinctive reaction of a human being to truth is essential to an understanding of whether or not a fluctuation on a graph has significance. Mr. HERNDON. I see what you are getting at. Mr. Moss. Now, you must assume if he is telling a lie, there is some guilt~ reaction, something that causes a stimulation. Mr. HERNDON. That is a generally accepted fact. In general people when they attempt to deceive-and I think many here some- time in their lives have experienced a sensation under a specific circumstance, where they have had to hedge or deceive-feel inner sensations. I think those of us who are investigators certainly know when you interrogate people, and you don't have to be an investi- gator very long before you can observe certain manifestations in individuals, that when they are deliberately lying they give them- selves away. Mr. Moss. Truth is not an absolute, is it? Mr. }IERNDON. There are certain people who are pathological liars, who are so calloused and hardened that they could lie all day. Mr. Moss. Where would we find those, normally, with the greatest frequency? In the criminal element? Mr. HERNDON. Not necessarily, but there are a number in the criminal element. Mr. Moss. Would you say they probably represent a larger per- centage of those involved in crime than those not involved in crime? Mr. HERNDON. I wouldn't venture a guess on that. Mr. Moss. But you can encounter them? Mr. IIERNDON. You can encounter them in most walks of life, I believe. ~ Mr. Moss. 1 suppose all of us resort to a little untruthfulness on occasion. I may regretfully decline an invitation stating I have a prior commitment, when I haven't a thing in. the world to do; I am just tired. Mr. HERNDON. I think that is the best answer. Many people experience a certain sensation when they practice a falsehood. Mr. Moss. All right. But there are certain things that you tolerate as slight deviations, the "white lies." Do they cause the same reaction in an individual that more serious untruths cause? PAGENO="0015" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 523 Mr. HERNDON. In general, I would say they would be somewhat less. In other words, greater severity of a situation would normally enhance the reaction. The greater the psychological impact and the seriousness of the situation are, one would normally expect, a more significant response. Mr. Moss. In some cultural backgrounds, a certain amount of untruthfulness is tolerated and not regarded as being sinful, and would, therefore, not place a guilt complex on an individual. So really, in the interrogation of an individual, you would have to know a fair amount about his background to apply this with any precision? Mr. HERNDON. That is very true. Could I add one thing in the light of your comments, that actually in the FBI, the polygraph technique is basically-and I think this is something we should keep in mind-is basically just an interrogation; it is an interview with a person ; it is two men discussing certain facts. The polygraph is just an instrumental device to assist the interrogator, but the technique is basically an interview, an interrogation, a trained skilled interrogator attempting to get the truth from an individual in a matter in which we have jurisdiction. Mr. Moss. I think there should be broad public understanding of this fact, because I think all of us have read from time to time news- paper stories which made it appear that X, who was under investiga- tion, was undoubtedly guilty, because he had declined to take a polygraph. Now, I have said before, and I would repeat with great emphasis, that, on the basis of my studies so far, I would absolutely refuse to submit to a polygraph examination for any purpose. And there should not be a connotation of guilt attached to such a refusal. Mr. HERNDON. That may occur in cases where the polygraph is used for precise judgments of guilt and nonguilt, but the Bureau does not use it in that way. We are very firm on that policy. And we insist our examiners keep that in mind in their interpretations of the charts. Mr. Moss. Thank you. Mr. Rumsfeld? Mr. RUMSFELD. I was curious to know what the gentleman means by the phrase "pathological liar"-what he thinks that means. He used it twice. Mr. HERNDON. I think there are certain individuals who have been described by psychiatrists and psychologists as pathological liars, who, because of their emotional and mental makeup, Mr. Con- gressman, can deceive or practice deception without any emotional hesitancy or response whatsoever. In other words, they can lie, feeling at ease, and not create any problem to themselves. Mr. RUMSFELD. Well, to pursue the questioning that the chairman was following, would you not answer "yes" to this question, that different individuals, because of their environment, have developed different levels or different categories of possible untruths that they can tolerate and not be pathological liars, but be something in between, just by virtue of their circumstances, background, and experiences and associations? Mr. HERNDON. I think that is true. And I think the trained examiners and interrogators consider that, because they consider the mores, background, and social status of the man and they have to PAGENO="0016" 524 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" interpret some of his comments based on what they feel his position would be. Mr. RUMSFELD. In other words, they have to, in their mind, determine what they suspect would be the code of this individual; and only if the individual were asked questions that would lead him outside of that code could you utilize the information from the exam- ination? Is this fair? Mr. HERNDON. I think that is a fair statement. But you must realize, in addition to the polygraph part itself, the. interrogation continues at some length and the agent and the man talk back and forth, and ~ exchange ideas and viewpoints, and the interview continues without the man being on the polygraph itself. That also gives the examiner additional help in getting subjective impressions of the man's comments. Mr. RUMSFELD. It sounds to me like a terribly difficult responsi- bility for the . interviewer. I am not knowledgeable about this. Unfortunately, I was not on this subcommittee when the previous hearings took place. But you think of a person in the Army. If he were asked questions about his colleagues, the men he was living with in the barracks, I would suspect he might have a code whereby he wouldn't feel the slightest bit of concern about misleading the person asking the questions about aspects of his associates' activities, unless, for example, it conceivably could at some point endanger the unit, or went to the overall goal of that group of people. Mr. HERNDON. That is a good assumption. Are you discussing personal screening in this area, or a criminal case? Mr. RIJMSFELD. Criminal case or anything. Individuals have differing codes, if you want to use that word. Politicians probably do. They may be asked "Do you plan to run for some office," and they probably don't perspire when they say "No," if they really are planning to run. This goes on every day, on television, before millions of people. I just am overwhelmed by the difficulty of the responsibility of these interviews. Mr. HERNDON. Someone has to do the job of interviewing people, because interviews are the basic tool or technique of an investigator. That is why the interviewers themselves should be people who have good commonsense and have a knowledge of human nature, because as you say, there are codes, there are standards that people will use. We feel the agents we have in the Bureau that we have selected for polygraph interviews are our men best able to sit down and develop a rapport, and understand the man, and get him to volunteer and talk to us as much as possible. It is our job, as investigators, to try to get to the truth of the matter, of the particular Federal offense. We feel with the men we have, with this additional skill we give them, they are in a position to do a better job on behalf of the Government. Mr. RUMSFELD. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. How long has the FBI used the polygraph? Mr. HERNDON. Actually, Mr. Chairman, we have followed the polygraph from its very inception, back in the 1920's. We have communications with the original Mr. Keeler, Mr. Larson, some of the people who first started the technique. PAGENO="0017" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" We have always followed it with interest. We have always kept in touch with it in the FBI laboratory. We have been interested in and used the polygraph in some form for perhaps 30 years. But we have always used it highly selectively and only when we felt the cir- cumstances were such that the polygraph technique could be of benefit to our investigation. Mr. Moss. Would you describe your use as experimental? Mr. IHERNDON. We have had some usage of the polygraph within our own agency, in the laboratory area, which would be considered experimental. But I wouldn't consider any time we interrogated a person in actual cases experimental. Mr. Moss. Are you aware of any careful experimenting going on in the Department of Justice on the use of polygraphs? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir; I am not aware of such experiments at this time. Mr. Moss. Are you aware of any experimenting outside of the Department of Justice? Mr. HERNDON. Yes; I have liaison with other agencies and, as you gentlemen know, from reports and studies, some agencies have spent considerable money in research and experimental programs using such scientific interrogation devices. Mr. Moss. Are you acquainted with the results of such experimen- tation? Mr. HERNDON. Yes, I am. Mr. Moss. Is this reported to you by any formal procedure? Mr. HERNDON. Being a Federal agency, we have access to excerpts and reports from other Federal agencies, and therefore, I would make it a point to try to get copies of the reports. Mr. Moss. In other words, your reference here goes to federally sponsored research? Mr. HERNDON. That is correct, sir. But we try to keep abreast of all research available. I have in mind the document which you publicly discussed, the assessment of lie detection capability, on which the Department of Defense expended a considerable amount of funds and did an extensive research job. We are aware of that study. That is an example of what you mean, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Mr. Kass? Mr. KAss. Mr. Mohr, in your polygraph regulations, or wht~tever, these manuals are, it states under paragraph C(l)(b), and I quote: Identity of persons to be afforded polygraph examination. Show age if it is to be a factor in decision. If a minor, indicate whether waiver can be obtained from parents or guardian. Specifly if persons are controversial or promineut fig~ires. Specify if persons have any known physical or mental disabilities. Mr. Mohr, what is the significance of having the FBI know if a controversial or prominent figure is invOlved as far as their taking the polygraph? Mr. MOIIR. It wouldn't make any difference, except that at least the people who are going to make the judgment as to whether to give the polygraph ought to know that. That i~ all. Mr. KAss. Why is that? Mr. Momt. I mean the approving officials should know who they are going to give it to, who the person is. In other words, we talk about a controversial figure, why, there are any number who might 525 49-132-65--pt. 5~-'--8 PAGENO="0018" 526 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS `~UE DETECTORS" fall into that category, and the only reason we ask that is that the investigative agent should provide the background of the individual, so that those who are going to pass judgment on it would know who is going to get the polygraph examination. Mr. KASS. This has nothing to do with Congressman Rumsfeld's point, that maybe some politicians would not get favorable responses and therefore you would avoid them? Mr. MOHR. Oh, no. Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, in your instructions to the agents, agents are to "consider whether the use of the polygraph technique might jeop- ardize any other prosecutive action." How would you explain that? Mr. MOHR. Well, there might be a situation where a person might already be, for instance, under indictment. We wouldn't want to give a polygraph to a person who had been indicted. Mr. KASS. Why would this make a difference? Mr. MOER. Normally we wouldn't interview somebody who under indictment since his attorney would not be present, and could conceivably be an interference with his right to a fair trial. Mr. KASS. Are there ever situations where the person taking the polygraph is allowed to have his attorney present in the room? Mr. MOHR. It has happened. ~ Mr. KASS. Do you inform them of their rights to have an attorney present in the room? Mr. MOHR. We inform individuals who are under arrest of the fact that they can have attorneys or consult an attorney. In the usual situation we would not give the polygraph with the attorney present. Mr. KASS. Is it possible, however, Mr. Conrad, to get a reading from the polygraph when a third party is present? Mr. CONRAD. Yes, it is. Mr. KASS. Is it a practice in your agency to have a third party present? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Mr. MOHR. Yes, the case agent is also present in the room when the interview is being conducted. Mr. KASS. You do not use two-way mirrors, do you? Mr. CONRAD. No. Mr. 1~ASS. Do you use any hidden recording devices? Mr. CONRAD. We do not. Mr. KAss. Mr. Moh.r, you referred in your opening statement to a waiver a person must sign prior to taking the polygraph examina- tion. Why does he have to sign such a waiver? Mr. MOUR. We think it is important to insure that the individual who is taking the polygraph examination is doing it voluntarily. And we can't think of a better way of proving that than by the use of this statement. He has signed it; it has been witnessed; and he knows exactly what is going to take place. Mr. KASS. Mr. Chairman, can we insert the waiver in the record at this ~point? Mr. Moss. Is there objection? (No response.) Mr. Moss. It will be inserted at this point. is it PAGENO="0019" I agree to the use of the Polygraph or so-called "Lie Detector" during this inter- view or any part of it, and I am willing to be present at the time and place of interview for such time as necessary to complete the interview. No threats or promises of any kind have been made to me to obtain my consent to this interview. Signed Witnesses: Date Place Mr. KASS. What is the person waiving? Mr. MOHR. He is waiving his right or privilege to not take the polygraph examination. Mr. KASS. Does he waive his right or privilege not to have his fingerprints taken? Mr. MOHR. No, he can't do that. Mr. KASS. Why do you make a difFerence? Mr. MOHR. The courts have held the fingerprints are a matter of identity and are not a matter of incrimination and therefore, one can be compelled to have his fingerprints taken when placed under arrest. Mr. KASS. Are there any other type of tests or interrogation devices where the person has to sign a waiver? Mr. Monu. I don't recall of any at this time. Mr. KASS. What is he waiving? Is he waiving his constitutional right? Is he waiving his right to have his privacy invaded? You use the word "waiver" Mr. MOER. The word "waiver" means just that. As I indicated, he has the free choice to either submit to the test or not to submit to it. And the fact that we have him sign this form shows that he consents to be interviewed with the use of the polygraph. Mr. KASS. Does he consent to be interviewed by an FBI agent in the first place? Mr. MOHR. Yes. Mr. KASS. What happens if he denies it? Mr. MOHR. The interview is terminated. Mr. KASS. What happens if he refuses to take a polygraph exami~. nation? Mr. MOHR. There is no polygraph examination. Mr. KASS. Is there any record or notation made in that person's file that he refused to take a polygraph examination? Mr. MOUR. The file would reflect he was offered the opportunity of submitting to a polygraph examination and he refused. Mr. KASS. Why would you put that in there? Mr. MOIIR. For the same reason that he was offered the opportunity of an interview and he declined. Mr. KASS. Is there any significance placed on this refusal? Mr. MOHR. No. Mr. KASS. Do you pass this information to any other agency? Mr. Mona. It could conceivably happen another agency could be furnished data from our files. USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" CQNSDNT To INTERvIEw WITH POLYGRAPH 527 I, , consent freely and voluntarily to be interviewed by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which I also know as the FBI, in connection with PAGENO="0020" 528 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr.' KASS. Which would also reflect the fact he refused to take a polygraph? ` Mr. MOHR. It might. Mr. KASS. You also referred to the fact that the testee is not informed of the final opiniOns and conclusions the polygraph operator has rendered. Why not? ` Mr. MOHR. As Mr. Herndon indicated, we consider the results of the polygraph interview not to be precise to the point where a person's guilt or innocence could be judged, and since it is only an investigative aid, and of value to the investigating agent, we don't make it avail- able to the person being interviewed. Mr. KAss. You say it is an investigative aid. Let's take this type of situation : The only information you have on the individual is the fact that the operator said that, based on the polygraph examination, there is some indication of deception. What do you do with this information? Mr. MOHR. The investigative agent would use that to conduct further investigation, with respect to that particular individual, to confirm or not the fact that he might be guilty. Mr. KAss. What if you don't get any other information? Mr. MOHR. That would be the end of the case with respect to that individual. Mr. KAss. Is it in the file of the individual that he took a poly- graph examination and that he has shown deception at that particular point? Mr. MOHR. The charts and ma,terial in connection with the poly- graph examination would appear in the substantive case file. ` Mr. KAss. And that stays- Mr. MOHR. In the FBI. This material is not disseminated to anyone. . Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, culd you discuss the training program that polygraph operators take? Mr. RUMSFELD. May I ask a question? You said, Mr. Mohr, that this polygraph information is not dis- seminated to anybody. Does that mean nobody, or does that mean except the Internal Revenue Service, if they might want it, or CIA if they might want it? Does it mean absolutely nobody outside of theFBI? Mr. MOHR. We do not disseminate the charts that are obtained during the polygraph interview. Mr. RUMSFELD. Well, you don't disseminate the charts. Do you disseminate the information on the charts, on request from CIA, or IRS, or State Department, or the Executive Office of the President, which would be somebody outside of the FBI? ` Mr. Moun. The fact of the interview with the polygraph might be disseminated under the circumstances you have indicated. If there was an official interest in an individual, it might be disseminated to them. Mr. RUMSFELD. Thank you. Mr. KASS. Just one question on that, Mr. Mohr. You say poly- graph charts w uld not be available to anybody? Mr. MOHR. That is correct. Mr. KASS. Now, if the person, during the course of a polygraph examination, admits or confesses to the crime in question, do you submit this information, this admission, this confession, in evidence? PAGENO="0021" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS `LIE DETECTORS" Mr. MORE. Yes. Any admission during the polygraph examina'. tion would be admissible evidence. Mr. KASS. Is there an opportunity for the defense counsel to find out the nature of the confession and how the person confessed and the circumstances surrounding it? Mr. Monu. If counsel is representing the individual, why, the in- dividual obviously could tell him the fact he submitted to a polygraph and what the circumstances of the interview were. Mr. KAss. Does the defense counsel have an opportunity to cross- examine or to examine the FBI agent? Mr. MOHR. The one that conducted the polygraph examination? Mr. KASS. Yes. Mr. Momt. Normally he does not, because that would not be admissible in evidence. I can conceive of a hearing, however, where a judge might require the presence of the examiner and he would be made available. Mr. MONAGAN. If you got to the trial and go to the point where the confession or the question of the admissibility of the confession was raised, then it is conceivable, as a preliminary question, the agent might be called? Mr. Monu. Yes, certainly. Mr. MONAGHAN. He might be required to testify? Mr. MOUR. That is right. In other words, I can conceive of a hearing, usually before a judge, as to the admissibility of the confession and I can conceive where the polygraph examiner would be called to testify, and he would appear. Mr. KASs. Has this ever happened? Mr. HERNDON. In a few instances. Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, turning to the training program, could you describe your agei~icy's training program for polygraph operators? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Basically our training program is tailored to meet the needs of the FBI, and to the existing qualifications of the trainee candidates, from whom we have to draw. No. 1 , we have already a very highly selective source of trainees in the agent personnel of our organization. These men are college graduates ; they have undergone a very thorough field investigation as to character, suitability, maturity, and so forth. Each of them whom we bring in for this training has had at least from 5 to 10 years of actual field investigative experience, and the selection is based on factors which Mr. Mohr has previously outlined here, but which specifically include aptitude for interrogation procedures. With this type of individual to train, we have found that 2 weeks training of a~ academi'~ nature, follow~ - ~roximately 1 of C1 rised on-~ ob ~ us 529 sum~. ofthe 1- Mr~ LASS. ~vir. Conrad, on policies do you mean the we have discussed prior to this? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. It also includes a résumé of t'~ background of polygraph development. of things PAGENO="0022" 530 vsi~ OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. KASS. Let me interrupt you at each point. On the history and background of the polygraph, is there any prepared material the students or trainees are given? Mr. CONRAD. Nothing other than books which they can read, a bibliography, to which they are referred for outside reading. A copy of the bibliography has been furnished to the subcommittee. (See exhibit 43, p. 572.) Mr. KASS. Is this through a lecture type of course? Mr. CONRAD. It is lecture and practical work. Mr. KASS. How many students will sit in a course? Mr. CONRAD. Normally about eight. Mr. KASS. And the course continues for 2 weeks? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Mr. KASS. Five days a week? Mr. CONRAD. Six days a week. Mr. MOHE. Seven, sometimes. Mr. KASS. How many hours a day? Mr. CONRAD. Eight, exclusive of homework. We also devote some time to nomenclature and functions of the polygraph instrument. We cover polygraph test techniques and the physiological basis of the polygraph method of detection of deception. We also cover psychological factors affecting polygraph use. Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, do you give the lectures? Mr. CONRAD. No, I do not. Mr. KASS. Do you, Mr. Herndon? Mr. HERNDON. I give some of the lectures, Mr. Kass. Mr. KASS. Which lectures do you give? Mr. HERNDON. I touch upon many of these subjects. I give the history, and I give some of the policy. I work with several of my . colleagues who are also instructors during the nomenclature lectures. It is almost an individual instructor to student operation. We have a faculty of three to four men who work with eight students. So you can see it is a very small class and therefore it is almost an individual attention relationship. But I do give lectures in policy, history, nomenclature, and function, part of the polygraph test technique, and thepractical case exercise. Mr. KASS. ~ Mr. Conrad, who gives the lectures or the training on the psychological factors affecting polygraph use? Mr. CONRAD. We have some men who have training in psychology. Mr. KASS. How much training? Mr. CONRAD. Do you want the number of hours of college work? Mr. KASS. Are they psychologists? Mr. CONRAD. Originally, yes. The present instructor has graduate work in psychology. Some of the initial training was by an individual who had a Ph. D. in psychology. Mr. KASS. You say "originally," but not at the present time? Mr. CONRAD. The psychologist with the Ph. D. is no longer with the organization, having retired. Mr. KASS. What are the qualifications of the instructors for the physiological part? Mr. CONRAD. An instructor who has postgraduate work in physi- ology. Mr. KASS. Is there any course material given to these students in thes~e two fields? PAGENO="0023" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 531 Mr. CONRAD. Nothing other than the bibliography and the lecture. Mr. KASS. What would they be required to read for obtaining the background knowledge on the physiological factors that is in this bibliography? Could you supply that for the record? Mr. CONRAD. Surely. (The requested information follows:) The principal sources from the bibliography providing background of the physiological factors are: 4. Ax, Albert F. "Psychophysiology of Fear and Anger," Psychiatric Research Report 12, American Psychiatric Association, January 1960(a), 167-175. 5. Best and Taylor. "The Living Body," Henry Holt & Co., 1952. 31. Morgan and Stellar, "Physiological Psychology," McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1950. Mr. KAss. By the way, does the FBI maintain a library so they can get this information from these books? Mr. CONRAD. Yes, indeed. Mr. KASS. A complete library of all of these? Mr. CONRAD. Our library includes most of these, and we have access to libraries which do. For example, we have access to the Library of Congress. Mr. KASS. Would you continue? You were going down the list of the training. Mr. CONRAD. We also cover the effect of drugs on the polygraph use. Mr. KASS. What is the effect of drugs on polygraph use? Mr. CONRAD. In general, it can modify the degree of the response of the individual to the questions that are asked. In extreme cases, it might completely obliterate the response of the individual to the question. Mr. KASS. Into how much detail would the instructor go, in talking about drugs? ~ Mr. CONRAD. Enough to acquaint the examiner with the fact that this could affect the result and that he should be on the alert for any indication that drugs may have been taken by the individual under examination, so he can take that into consideration in his evaluation of the examination. Mr. KASS. How can the polygraph operator tell whether the person is under the influence of drugs? Mr. CONRAD. There are various physical manifestations that make themselves apparent when one is deeply under the influence of drugs. For example, if it is a sedative drug, one will become sleepy, obviously sleepy, just as a man who is under the influence of alcohol becomes more or less apparently drunk. And there are, of course, chemical tests which could be given if it came to the point of establishing smaller amounts. Mr. KASS. Do you give chemical tests prior to a polygraph exam- ination? Mr. CONRAD. No, we do not. Mr. KASS. Mr. Herndon, can a person under the influence of alcohol be responsive to the polygraph examination? Mr. HERNDON. Of course he can be responsive to it. Normally we wouldn't interrogate a person who is obviously intoxicated. Mr. KASS. Where would you draw the line? One beer, two? Mr. HERNDON. In the pretest interviews with these people, we specifically ask them about medication and alcoholic beverages. Many people will volunteer the fact that "I was too nervous, Mr. Herndon; I took a couple of tranquilizers." PAGENO="0024" 1 Mr. Moss. What is the effeët of a tranquilizer? Mr. HERNDON. A tranquilizer could suppress the physiological reactions for which we are looking. Mr. Moss. It could. Would it? Mr. HERNDON. It depends on many factors, Mr. Chairman: The nature of the man; how much drug he is accustomed to; when he took it last. Mr. Moss. Do you have a medical doctor available to make this determination? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir; we do not. Mr. Moss. Do you have anybody who is sufficiently knowledgeable to make this evaluation? What is the effect of three aspirins, taken 1 hour before the examination? That isn't a drug we normally associate in context with the term "drug," but it is a very commonly used preparation that has some effect upon physiological functions. Mr. }IERNDON. To answer your question, I have had such cases where people have come in and said "I took two or three aspirin," and the aspirin doesn't necessarily affect the overall interrogation because if the person is properly interrogated and stimulated enough, his reactions will still show through. Mr. Moss. Will aspirin cause the blood pressure to drop? Mr. HERNDON. I am not a doctor, so I am not qualified to specifi.. cally answer that question. But I would presume aspirin could cause a slight decrease, perhaps, in the blood pressure. Mr. Moss. Do you know what the specific effect of aspirin is? Mr. HERNDON. Medically speaking, I do not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Medically or physiologically speaking. Again I get back to the fact that the committee is concerned with the large voids in this technique, which may only be filled by the highly trained practitioner in medicine, not the psychologist, but the psychiatrist and the physiologist. I recall hearing rumors that people sometimes take aspirin to try to pass tests where they want to avoid having too high blood pressure. I don't know whether it is true or not. But if it is, then it would have some specific effect upon a subject taking a poly- graph examination. Does heavy smoking have any effect? Mr. HERDON. N )t based on my experience, unless a man was smok- ing so heavily he was disturbing his respiratory pattern-in other words, constant hacking and coughing would affect the chart. Mr. Moss. I am a member of- a committee that is taking testimony now on the matter of labeling tobacco products and some of the testi- mony would indicate that cigarettes have a very real effect upon circulation, and heart function. Do we know in the application of the polygraph-which relies heavily upon the blood pressure and upon heart action-what the effect of smoking is? Should we know this? Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I may, to respond to the latter part of your question. Mr.1~' ,. C~ Mr. ( ~AD~ the pol' points r makes, I believe i the improper use of t~tie po~ ~32 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" I PAGENO="0025" it. I would cite as a possible analogy an eyewitness. We still inter- view an eyewitness to a bank robbery although he may have taken three aspirin, or he may have taken a drink of alcohol, but we still accept the information which he gives us, and then we attempt to confirm it by ~ other investigation. We treat our polygraph in the same light. Mr. Moss. Let's take your analogy. Certainly there is a lot more research on the reliability of eyewitnesses than there is on the r'eli- ability of the channel on respiration in the polygraph. Mr. CONRAD. Research with regard to what? Mr. Moss.. The reliability of observation by a human being, of some physical phenonema, whether it is someone hitting someone over the head with a club or shooting them. And I recognize the fallibility of this type of evidence, because you can have five eye- witnesses and five different versions. Mr. CONRAD. That is right, sir. Mr. Moss. Which merely goes again to prove the unreliability of human beings. And yet we have, not in the FBI, but we have, if my information is correct, some agencies and some American businesses that regard this as almost a precise instrument. And it is only taking one small part of this human being and trying to measure that. Mr. CONRAD. Well, we have already indicated we do not regard it as having sufficient precision that it can be relied on in that way. Mr. Moss. I recognize that. But here we have one agency where the average of its personnel, from the standpoint of education and preparation, is way above that of the other agencies using this device. Your training goes to men who are already far more skilled at inter- rogation and investigation than the average of some of the other departments of Government. ~ You place less reliance on the poly- graph than they do. These areas, which are of interest to me and I think to my colleagues on the committee, are areas which clearly you have not explored, where you are not prepared to give an answer, Or make a judgment. I think this is important to the committee in establishing the bounds of this problem of polygraphs and their use. Mr. CONRAD. My only point, Mr. Chairman, was simply the one that in the way in which the FBI uses the polygraph, it really wouldn't make too much difference to us whether the examinee has had three aspirins or not. We take the information and fit it in with all of the other information available at our disposal. Mr. Moss. It would only make a difference if at that point this might become the deciding factor in a case where you determined not to move ahead. Mr. CONRAD. It would never do that in our work, sir. Mr. Moss. All right. If you would never make it the deciding factor, then your statement is clearly correct. Mr. MOER. That is correct, sir. Mr. Moss. Mr. Kass? Mr. KASS. Mr. Ilerndon, when a person lies, can his respiration ott the chart go up? Mr. HERNDON. It can. Mr. KAss. Can it go down? Mr. HERNDON. It can. Mr. KASS. Can his galvanic skin response go up and down? USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 533 I 49-132-65-pt. 5--4 PAGENO="0026" 534 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. HEENDON. Yes. Mr. KASS. And likewise with the blood pressure and pulse. Mr. HERNDON. There is no set prediction what the physiological response of any given individual will be. Mr. KASS. If the chart can go up or down on all three of the so- called parameters, how can you determine whether there is even an indication that you have to go forward? Mr. IIERNDON. Because the good polygraph examiner establishes a normal pattern, a normal tracing, somewhere along the line, for the examinee, giving him the benefit of tension and nervousness. Mr. KASS. How do you establish the normal pattern? Mr. HERNDON. There are several ways. The use of irrelevant questions will tend to establish a normal pattern, because an irrelevant question should not normally emotionally upset the man. "Is your first name Benny?" "Is your last name Kass?" There should be no problem there. Mr. KASS. What happens if that did upset me? Mr. HERNDON. If you had a reaction to that, I would tell you about it, and I would ask you why, and you would probably come up with an answer and I would consider that in my overall interpretation. But in our practice, Mr. Kass, we establish a norm series. During the adjustment of the instrument to the particular examinee, while we are adjusting the instrument, our examiner will run the chart* for 2 or 3 minutes without any outside stimuli, such as noise or inter- rogation. This gives the examiner a good idea generally of what the examinee's normal breathing pattern is, how tense he may be, what his normal tracing should be with regard to blood pressure, and his gal- vanic skin response. Mr. KASS. You take a person who just sat in this hearing and he knows this, and he comes into your polygraph examination room this afternoon. He knows you are trying to establish his normal pat- tern the first 2 or 3 minutes. Is it within the capacity of an individual to regulate the GSIR, to regulate the breathing, to regulate the blood pressure and pulse? Mr. HERNDON. If he attempts to control or supersede the auto- nomic nervous system, he can in some degree control or change these components. It is possible, yes. Mr. KAss. Then how can you arrive at a "normal" for a person who is volunteering to take the test but feels he can beat the test? ~ Mr. HERNDON. By training of the examiner and observation of the examinee. Many of the things a person may do to try to alter his normal patterns are relatively noticeable and easily detected by a trained and skilled examiner. Mr. KAss. You are talking about possibly the run-of-the-mill criminal-type case. But you also said you used it in selected national security cases. Isn't it possible that the other side, whatever side that may be, could train their personnel so that they could get through without being picked up on the polygraph? Mr. HERNDON. It is probable. They train some of their people in an effort to counter the polygraph. Mr. KAss. How do you know it is not done? How can you counter- act that? Mr. HERNDON. By using our best judgment and skill to counteract what we think they might be doing. But here again we are not making PAGENO="0027" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 535 great decisions based solely on this examination. We are still trying to get an interview going with this man, and we might get some worthwhile information. Mr. KAss. What happens if the individual just doesn't believe in the polygraph, if he doesn't think it is infallible? Mr. HERNDON. Well, if he doesn't believe in the polygraph, doesn't want to take the test- Mr. KASS. No; he takes it. . Mr. HERNDON. We just continue with the interview. Mr. KASS. Are you going to get a response then? Mr. HERNDON. It would depend. I couldn't answer that question unless I knew what type of questions we are discussing with the man and depending on his physiological makeup. Mr. KASS. How do you determine the person's physiological makeup at the time of the interview? Mr. HEENDON. When he is first connected to the polygraph and during the first series of questions, the examiner obtains a good insight into whether the person is capable of a response. Mr. KASS. How do you determine whether he is capable of a response? That is the basic question. Mr. HERNDON. Here again, going into the technique itself, you have such things as the control question, guilt complex, peak of ten- sion, and some other techniques which will establish a significant reaction. Mr. KASS. By the way, in the report on the President's Commis- sion on the Assassination of President Kennedy, it was reported that, just before you gave the polygraph examination to Jack Ruby, you snapped your fingers. Mr. HERNDON. That was done to adjust the GSR. The visual or auditory stimulus of snapping the fingers would be picked up in his mind and it would cause a physiological response which is very noticeable on the GSR. Mr. KASS. How valid or reliable is the GSR? Mr. HERNDON. The GSR component is just one of the three that we normally use. For our purpose we wouldn't want to depend on the GSR alone in making any findings. In laboratory research work, psychiatrists and psychologists have been using GSR for a number of years and it is reported to be fairly reliable. We have no percentage figures concerning its validity, because we don't use GSR solely. We use it to corroborate the other two tracings. Mr. KAss. But will there always be identical tracings, up and down, of GSR, blood pressure and respiration? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir. Mr. KASS. Is it possible when a person is ~1ying or is emotional, that one of those three components will give you an indication? Mr. HERNDON. That is correct. Some people tend to respond in one, two or all three. Mr. KASS. Is it possible they will respond in one index at one point and in another index at another point? Mr. HERNDON. It is possible. Mr. KAss. How do you know whether they are deceiving or not? Mr. HERNDON. By the examiner comparing the critical responses with the normal patterns and responses we have established with so- called control questions. PAGENO="0028" 536 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS LIE DETECTORS ~ Mr. KASS. Let's reserve the control questions for a moment. Are you satisfied, in your operation of the polygraph, that you are getting so-called normal responses from the person, so when you ask a rele- vant question you will obtain a significant deviation? Mr. HERNDON. I believe so, with the use of controls and techniques, such as the guilt complex and peak tension technique. Here again what I am getting at, Mr. Kass, is not a firm judgment, but an informed opinion, if I may use such terminology. I am trying to get across the fact that we don't say because subject A responds higher in one place than another, that he is deceiving. But it gives an examiner, who has had years of experience and training interrogat- ing people with this instrument, a good indication that this particular question has created a sufficient physiological disturbance that it is possible he is engaging in deception. Many times when one challenges the man about his response, he is aware of a sensation and he will admit to it thereby perhaps opening up the avenue for a confession. Mr. KASS. What if the person doesn't admit to it? Mr. HERNDON. It is still the job of the investigator to try to solve the case without a confession. Mr. KAss. Let's get to the techiiiques for a moment. Can you explain what you mean by the control question technique? Mr. HERNDON. In many types of scientific examination you have to establish a control. A control question in polygraph technique is a que~ion concerning which the examiner would normally expect a particular individual to attempt to deceive or hedge thereby giving a physiologIcal response. Mr. KAss. You stated a "scientific" technique. Do you consider the polygraph to be a scientific technique? Mr. IIERNDON. I consider it more of an art or skill, but it does have some fundamentals in the area of science, but it is not pure science. Mr. KASS. Did you give the polygraph examination to Jack Ruby? Mr. IIERNDON. Yes, sir, I did. Mr. KAss. Could you explain the circumstances behind that? Mr. HERNDON. I would like to comment that the polygraph examination of Jack Ruby was given at the specific request of the Chief Justice of the United States, who was then Chairman of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. He agreed to Mr. Ruby's many requests for a polygraph examination in his hearing with Mr. Ruby at Dallas, Tex. Mr. Ruby, at the very beginning of his conversations with the Chief Justice, specifically asked for a lie detector test, a polygraph examination. Mr. KAss. Why was this? Mr. HERNDON. He indicated, I believe, he wanted to prove to the Commission and to thQ world, that there was no conspiracy between him and Oswald. Mr. MONAGAN. Was this with relation to the Warren Commission investigation? Mr. HERNDON. That is correct. Mr. MONAGAN. Not with relation to any criminal prosecution? Mr. HERNDON. No. Mr. Moss. The Chair would like to say that the staff has contacted the district attorney in Dallas, Tex., about this matter, so any dis- cussion here today is sanctioned and is not meant to interfere in any manner with any appeal pending there. PAGENO="0029" uSE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. KASS. Mr. Herndon, for the record, when was this polygraph examination? Mr. HERNDON. It was July 18, 1964. Mr. KASS. Could you give us any indication of the time that the polygraph examination took? Mr. HERNDON. Mr. Kass, in that regard the polygraph examina- tion was part of an overall hearing that the Commission held with Mr. Ruby in the Dallas County jail. The hearing itself began shortly after lunch. It is all a matter of record in the testimony before the Warren Commission. As I recall, the polygraph examina- tion didn't proceed until approximately midafternoon, about 3 o'clock. We conducted approximately five or six series of questions up until about 5 o'clock, after which Mr. Ruby had close to about a 2-hour break. We resumed early in the evening and the test continued until approximately 9 o'clock. Mr. RUMSFELD. Who prepared the questions for that? Mr. HERNDON. The questions were specifically prepared by the Warren Commissi n, with some alteration and modification in form by me as the examiner to make the questions conform to polygraph requirements. Mr. KASS. Is it a normal practice to have the subject tell you questions to ask him? Mr. E[ERNDON. It is not normal practice, but it happened in this instance. Mr. KAss. For the record, this examination began at 2 :58 p.m., and lasted until 4 :45, p.m., and resumed at 6 :25 and lasted until 8 :59. And the deposition took an additional hour. Is it normal FBI practice to give a polygraph examination for such a great length of time? Mr. HERNDON. It is not, but there could be a major case where we might run as lông as 4 hours, but normally we don't take that long on a polygraph. Mr. KAss. You say it has been done? Mr. HERNDON. There could be a specific major kidnaping or bank robbery case where because of circumstances and so many questions to cover it could proceed into perhaps 3 or 4 hours, the examinee being willing. But here again we would give the examinee every opportunity for a rest, a break, and show great concern for his welfare. Mr. KASS. Will a person ever get to a point where he becomes insensitive to the polygraph examination? Mr. HERNDON. In my opinion a person may reach a point where he becomes insensitive to a polygraph examination. Mr. KASS. How can you tell? Mr. HERNDON. Generally you can tell by their physical inanifesta- tions during the interview, plus their charts. Their charts may flatten out, as we call it. They become somewhat immune ~ to the technique. Mr. KASS. Will the chart flatten out with respect to the so-called relevant questions you ask or just with respect to the so-called normal questions, or will the norm be the same? Mr. HERNDON. Are you speaking with regard to a person who has become desensitized? Mr. KASS. Correct. 537 PAGENO="0030" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. ETERNDON. Normally they would flatten out to both types of questions. Mr. KASS. You stated earlier you try to develop a person's norm on the chart so by asking relevant questions you can get some sort of rising or lowering on the chart. When a person becomes desensitized, is his norm still the same as it was before on the chart? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir. Mr. KAss. It changes? Mr. }TERNDON. It usually changes. In other words, he would become somewhat immune to the technique and you wouldn't have the same tracings. It is possible with some people when they become desensitized the tracings could become erratic. I can't say flattening out is the only sign of desensitization. Should people show signs of fatigue we terminate the examination. Mr. KASS. What do you mean by "flattening out"? Is there nothing on the chart? Mr. HERNDON. The tracings would become somewhat insignificant. There would be no discernable reaction. Mr. KASS. What about his norm, where there were no significant variations? Mr. HERNDON. ~ That is usually established in the early part of the examination while the man is relatively fresh and the questions are fresh in his mind. Mr. KASS. What causes a person to be desensitized? Mr. HERNDON. I think it is the very fact that physiologically, in due time, the physiological system will tend to either not respond or will in some cases become irritated and the person can't sit still any more. Mr. KASS. But there can be responses? Mr. HERNDON. Yes, sir. Mr. Moss. Now, if it is irritating, can it not produce very definite responses, responses that would be very similar to those which might occur because a person is emotional? Mr. HERNDON. Very true. We are very careful in that regard. We specifically train our people to insure that the blood pressure cuff is not on a person for too great a length of time. Mr. Moss. What is too great a length of time? Mr. HERNDON. This wifi vary again with the physical condition of the person beingexamined. Usually the average examiner will not run a series beyond 3 to 4 minutes. Mr. Moss. And then he relieves the pressure on ~ the cuff? Mr. HERNDON. That is right, completely relieves the pressure and usually there is an interruption or break period between series. Normally the FBI polygraph examiners will not use long multiple series of qusetions on the polygraph. As Mr. Kass mentioned, the Ruby case was a highly unusual and unique case and the technique used there would not be considered normal procedure. Mr. Moss, Are there any physical conditions where a person could actually experience pain from the application of the cuff? Mr. HERNDON. If the cuff had been applied, Mr. Chairman, an excessive length of time, there could be physical discomfort. Mr. Moss. In normal application, I mean, are there physical conditions where the cuff could be painful? Mr. HERNDON. Some people don't like the cuff pressure on their arm. In that regard, we would discontinue the examination if they 538 PAGENO="0031" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 539 so requested or if there was any indication of trauma or any discomfort to the person. Mr. Moss. Supposing you have a willing subject with a physical condition which would cause the cuff to be painful. Can that happen? Mr. MOELR. You mean if they told you it was painful? Mr. Moss. Maybe they were anxious to take the test and get it over with. Mr. HERNDON. Preceding each examination, the examiners are trained to carefully go over with the examinee the physical condition of the examinee that day. Mr. Moss. It seems to me that one of the publications, and I am not clear in my mind whether it was a book or testimony, but I recall that the inference would be drawn from a complaint of discomfort in the application of the cuff that the person was probably trying to avoid questions or beat the machine. How do you differentiate be- tween a valid complaint and a specious complaint? Mr. HERNDON. If the person was complaining about the cuff hurt- ing him, you would have to go along with the examinee. But it is a known fact that some people, when they come to take a polygraph examination, who perhaps are concerned that they are involved, could as a guise say "This bothers me, take it off." That has happened. I think using commonsense and the ability of an interrogator, it is usually obvious to him that this man is trying not to take the exam- ination. Mr. Moss. Well, this is not determinative, you indicated, in the practice of the FBI. But there are other instances where it would be. As an experienced examiner, have you knowledge of conditions or do you know whether there are conditions where it would in fact be pain- ful and where such a complaint would be completely valid? Mr. HERNDON. In the thousands of cases of which I have knowledge no one has ever specifically made that complaint, sir, that this has caused physical harm to their arm, or would cause it. Mr. Moss. I don't mean harm. I mean pain or discomfort. Has anyone ever complained to you of discomfort? Mr. HERNDON. In some of the examinations a person might say "I feel a tingling sensation," and at that point I would release the pressure and I would reduce my series questions. Mr. Moss. I don't know what the effect of sclerosis might be on a person taking such a test. I don't know whether it would have any effect. I don't know what effect it might have on people of middle age or later who have some impairment of nerve sensations in their arm because of a pinched nerve as a result of closing the cervical openings. And these are common complaints in persons as they move along beyond the middle years. I don't know what effect this would have on the placing of the cuff on the arm. To your knowledge has any determination of this been made? Mr. HEBNDON. To my knowledge we have had no trouble in that regard. As you may know, it is possible if a person seems to be sensi- tive to a cuff on the arm, there are other ways of measuring the same response, by lowering it to the wrist, and that has been done in some cases. Mr. Moss. Is that a technique that is known to all examiners? Mr. HERNDON. I don't know. I do know it is known to all the examiners in the FBI, to change the cuff to a wrist cuff, so they would feel less pressure. PAGENO="0032" I 540 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. Moss. Now if this was a physiological problem that caused the discomfort, would it be lessened by placing it on the wrist? Mr. HERNDON. Probably so, but here again I would have to know the nature of the problem. We have consulted with doctors in regard to a specific examinee, if we feel he has a problem. In that connection, I might add when we have a situation where we believe a person wants to take a polygraph, as you suggested, and who would feel we were remiss if we didn't give it to him, and yet there is some indication he has a medical problem, we have in the past contacted his doctor and said "Your patient, so and so, wants to be interviewed with a poly- graph. Do you know of any reason why we can not proceed with the examination?" And we explain what we do. We actually clear with the physician first. Mr. Moss. I don't know how much research has been done in this field to determine these facts. That is why I raise them, not because the FBI will use it this way, but again I am mindful of the fact that this is widely used in American business and industry, and frequently the failure to successfully take a test, whatever that means, means you are not hired. And if someone should lose the opportunity for employment purely over some physiological problem, that would be very unfair, very unjust. So many of my questions are merely to . establish the fact that even with a well-trained operator these areas have not been fully explored. Certainly in the 6-week miracle who may have no degree of any kind-he might only have a high school diploma and his machine-it is inconceivable that he will make any- where near as much of an evaluation as you people can. Mr. Kass. Mr. KAss. Mr. Herndon, during the course of the Ruby polygraph examination, you stated, and I quote from volume 14 of the hearings of the Commission at page 590: In general practice of polygraph work, generally speaking, the control questions are of lesser severity than the actual pertinent questions, but in those cases where the person appears to be telling the truth, we find they will respond more to the control questions than the critical question, even though the critical question has more potency and is more severe with regard to his well-being. Could you explain this concept of the control technique? As I understand it, it is rather important to the polygraph technique. Is that correct? Mr. HERNDON. It is a vital part of the technique, that is correct, Mr. Kass, although I think it would be pretty hard for me to amplify on it beyond the way it is in the book. I meant what I said in the book, but if I could perhaps put it another way, the control question is a question wherein you expect to get a response from an individual who will probably, because of the nature of the question, practice deception. And we use that as a gage or control in comparing it with the reaction to the critical or relevant questions. . Mr. KASS. Who determines whether the person will be severely or less severely affected by the control question? Who prepares the control question? Mr. HERNDON. The polygraph examiner prepares the control questions. Mr. KASS. How does he know what questions to ask? Mr. HERNDON. Based on the general concept of the technique, the control question has to be somewhat generally related to the instant PAGENO="0033" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 541 offense, but not the critical question. In other words, if it is a theft case, a control question would be along the lines of another type of theft or similar theft, somewhat related, yet a specifically different question. Mr. KASS. How do you know it is of less severity than the actual critical question? Mr. HERNDON. In that regard you have to presume that the suspect is concerned about the main offense, that is why he is there, the main offense being a serious criminal offense which the FBI is asking about. And my control question is usually of such a nature that even if the man was guilty of this, it would not be as serious a crime as the main offense. Mr. KASS. You say you have to presume. What is your assump- tion based on? Mr. HERNDON. Interviewing procedures and techniques. Mr. KASS. Does the control question have to be of lesser severity? Mr. HERNDON. It doesn't necessarily have to be. It usually is. Mr. KASS. Who determines the degree of severity? Mr. HERNDON. The polygraph examiner. I don't believe the degree of severity is a critical issue in regard to discussing control questions. Mr. KASS. I was just referring to your statement here, where you said it must be of some lesser severity. If the subject lies on that control question, or if you get a response on the control question, and you don't get a response on the critical question, you are not going to be determining this person to be guilty of the offense in question. Mr. HERNDON. What we are concerned about is the threat to the well-being of the individual being examined. The psychological concept of the theory of the polygraph is that if the man is guilty, his concern is being caught in the specific offense. The other question, of lesser severity in his mind, should not emotionally disturb him as much. On the other hand, if he is an innocent person, he knows he did not commit the instant offiense, so the threat to his well-being now is perhaps these other less serious or severe type questions, which he will probably or possibly hedge on. Mr. KASS. If this is an innocent person, couldn't the threat to his well-being also be the fact that he is being subjected to an interview by the FBI? Mr. HERNDON. Very true. Mr. KASS. C )Uldn't it also be very important, when you ask him the so-called critical question, that you will get a response because he is afraid he will be picked up? Mr. HERNDON. That is one of the limitations of the polygraph. Mr. KASS. How do you know whether the person is concerned ab )ut ~ itornot? Mr. HERNDON. Because you interrogate him and ask him about his responses to these questions. Mr. KASS. What if he doesn't know? Mr. HERNDON. Usually they will come up with an explanation. Now you are discussing just one series here. We proceed with another series of questions to help evaluate the preceding series. In other words, we don't base the entire interpretation of the examination solely on the control question or that one critical question in series 1 or series 2. We will run a number of series or a number of interviews 49-132--~5-pt. 5~--5 PAGENO="0034" 542 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS `LIE DETECTORS" On the polygraph, put them all together and then come up with the best evaluation we can, and here again it is an informed opinion, not an absolute judgment. Mr. KAss. Let's take the entire polygraph examination that was given to Jack Ruby. Would this be typical of an examination? Forgetting the timespan, but considering the type of questions, the series you ran, the order in which you put the questions, the procedure, would this be typical if somebody wanted to find out how to run a polygraph examination? Would you consider it a typical type of examination? Mr. HERNDON. I would definitely not consider this a typical type of examination. In the latter part of my testimony before the Warren Commission I set forth specific factors involved in that interrogation which would be considered highly unusual in normal standard polygraph procedures. Mr. KASS. You asked certain questions of Mr. Ruby and you explained them extensively in your deposition to the Warren Com- mission. You said these were the control questions, and you placed great reliance on those control questions. How do you know, for ~,,` ~ example, that the question "Did you ever make a false official state- ment?" was of importance to Mr. Ruby? Or forget about Mr. Ruby, to any individual? How do you know the question "Have you ever hit anyone with any kind of a weapon?" would be of any significance to the subject? Mr. HERNDON. It would be significant in certain cases because of the nature of the examinee's background, his particular position, or why he was in custody. Mr. KASS. Now what about the mere fact that he is in custody? Wouldn't that bother him? Mr. HEENDON. Of course. I mentioned that in my testimony, sir. Mr. KASS. And what significance do you place on the fact that he is in custody? Mr. HERNDON. Normally the FBI will not render polygraph examinations once a man is in custody. We normally would not have conducted this examination under these circumstances. Mr. KASS. Now take a regular type of polygraph examination. You say you don't rely only on the control technique. What other series do you run? Mr. HERNDON. In modern polygraph work there are two or three other techniques commonly used, such as guilt complex series tech- nique, or peak of tension technique. Mr. KASS. What is the guilt complex series? Mr. HERNDON. That is where you use a guilt complex question and thereafter evaluate it against the critical questions. The guilt complex question is one wherein you want to determine a man's reaction to a situation which is actually a fictitious crime. It is usually somewhat related to the instant offense. Mr. KASS. Isn't that quite similar to the control technique? Mr. HERNDON. You could say it is possibly similar. I consider it a different technique. Mr. KAss. Now what is peak of tension? Mr. HERNDON. Peak of tension is establishing a set of questions. where one particular item or clue or specific fact would be extremely pertinent only to the guilty party, and has not been openly disclosed to the public or to other suspects. PAGENO="0035" TJSE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 543 Mr. KASS. Do you tell the person in advance of the test the ques- tions that you are going to ask on the peak of tension series? Mr. IIERNDON. In normal practice by FBI polygraph examiners we carefully go over each and every question prior to the actual polygraph test. Mr. KASS. Couldn't every single question be a peak of tension test? The mere fact you use the words "Did you," and the person doesn't know what the rest of the question is going to be, and yet he thinks that is the critical question, you are going to get a response. Mr. IIEENDON. That is possible. Mr. KASS. Flow can you account for that, or how can you rule that out? Mr. HEENDON. He generally has been indoctrinated with the examination, he knows these questions are coming up, and it doesn't seem to interfere by saying "Did you," or whatever the start of the question is. We have had no problem in that regard, Mr. Kass. Mr. KASS. How do you know? Mr. HERNDON. No one has indicated to us they didn't understand ..`~ the question or realize the intent of the question. Mr. KASS. How many guilty people could you have let go just because they got no response on the chart? Mr. HERNDON. Here again if we were using this technique like a serology examination or toxicology examination, where it was specifi- cally going to be a vital part of whether or not the Federal Govern- ment was going to prosecute a man, it would be a difficult question to answer. But this is strictly an interview and I, as an examiner, would, with the case agent, sit down and try to best determine whether or not it appeared this man could be hedging on that question or have a motivation with regard to the question. We are trying to ascertain whether or not he has been telling the truth. Additional investigation may determine his guilt or innocence. Mr. KASS. What about a person who is in an interview situation? You did state earlier this was used as an investigative technique to give you more leads. What happens if the guilty person ~gets no reaction because of the type of question you ask? Do you let him go? Mr. MOHR. Excuse me. You say a guilty person? Mr. KASS. Perhaps he is the one who did the crime in question. Mr. MOHR. If we didn't know, yes; we would let him go. Mr. KASS. As a result of the polygraph examination, you would let him go? Mr. MOHR. As a result of the total overall interview we would let him go, but we would continue our investigation. Mr. KASS. At what stage in the interview does the polygraph examination take place? Mr. HERNDON. The polygraph examination generally takes place during the middle part. In other words, you have the pretest inter- view, where the case agent and the examiner openly discuss the case with the suspect to see how much he knows, what he wants to volun- teer, and what information he would like to tell the agents. If desirable, we proceed with the polygraph technique. Then follows the post interrogation technique, where the polygraph examiner and the case agent discuss the answers with the suspect. Mr. KASS. In other words, after any polygraph examination, you still keep the person for further interview? PAGENO="0036" I Mr. HERNDON. If we feel there is a need to discuss the answers, time permits and there is no other problem with regard to the man's other commitments. Mr. KASS. But what happens if the agent doesn't feel there is a need to keep the person? Mr. HERNDON. He would be released, he would be free to leave. In other words, the interview is over and we would let him go. Mr. KASS. And the FBI would for all practical purposes drop the interrogation of this individual then? Mr. HERNDON. Not necessarily. Perhaps the case agent, would look at it and say "Here is a facet we might cover," and he would proceed on that. Mr. KASS. It is possible the polygraph examination could throw the FBI off the track though because as a result of no indication on the chart they would drop the person? Mr. MOHR. No ; that is not true. All it would meaii is we got no leads or benefits from that interview. It does not mean we would drop him as a suspect, depending on the circumstances. In other words, this particular interview would be just one of a series of ~ interviews, or would be part of your total investigation, including possible physical evidence you might have. But when you say "drop him," the answer is "No." Mr. HERNDON. We would not clear a man with the polygraph, no. Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, why doesn't the FBI use the polygraph for preemployment screening? Mr. MOHR. We have found, Mr. Kass, as a result of our investiga- tions of applicants that we get a good picture of them and we use that solely as a means to determine whether they meet the standards for employment in the FBI. We have never used the polygraph for preemployment screening, and one of the reasons we wouldn't use it is because it is not precise enough, it does not lend itself to precise judgments. Mr. KASS. But you do consider it a valuable tool for investigative purposes? Mr. MOHR. That is correct. Mr. KASS. Why don't you use it in more cases? Mr. MOHR. It doesn't lend itself to being useful in all types of cases. There are certain areas where it is extremely helpful and in other areas it is not particularly helpful. Mr. KASS. How many recommendations to use the polygraph examination were given in fiscal 1964? That is, recommendations to use the polygraph which went to the Associate Director? Mr. MOHR. And how many were rejected? Mr. KASS. Yes. Mr. MOHR. I would have to supply that for the record. Mr. Moss. That will be fine. (The information requested follows;) During the fiscal year 1964 there were 858 requests by the field to use the polygraph in selected cases and 265 or 31 percent were denied. Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, getting back to the training program, which we never finished, could you continue? Do you discuss the legal aspects? Mr. CONRAD. Yes; legal aspects are covered. 544 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" PAGENO="0037" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" Mr. KASS. Who conducts such a course? Mr. CONRAD. We have an individual who. is a specialist in those matters. Mr. KASS. IS he a lawyer? Mr. CONRAD. Yes, sir. Mr. KASS. And Mr. Herndon stated he conducts the course in practical case exercises and actual participation. Do you use hypo-. thetical situations to train a person on the polygraph? Mr. CONRAD. Prior to their training in an actual case situation the trainees will conduct several hypothetical or simulated cases. We will simulate a theft in the laboratory, with our own personnel, and give the students an opportunity to interrogate some of our willing employees, to get the trainees acquainted with the procedure. Mr. KASS. At what point in the training, in terms of time, will the trainee start to conduct a polygraph test? Mr. CONRAD. Near the completion of the second week, in the presence of an experienced faculty member or supervisor. Mr. KASS. So it ~S possible, and it is a fact that a polygraph ~ ~ operator, polygraph trainee, with just 2 or 3 weeks of training, will be running polygraph examinations on potential suspects? Mr. HER DON. That is correct. Mr. KASS. Doesn't this hamper the investigation? Mr. HERNDON. No. As a matter of fact it is interesting to note that in some of our cases, and of course I am not free to discuss cases, these examiners have broken cases in their first one or two attempts. It doesn't hamper the investigation. These interviews are already set up and scheduled, and then with the guidance of an experienced supervisor or polygraph man, we give the new examiner an oppor- tunity to conduct the interview. Here again these are not new inter-. viewers, these men have been in the Bureau 10 years or more and have conducted many interviews and investigations, but they are are now using polygraph techniques. Mr. Moss. Does the FBI train polygraph examiners for anyone else? Mr. MOHR. No, sir. Mr. KAss. Is the subject of the polygraph examination informed that the operator is a trainee? Mr. HERNDON. No, sir ; we do not inform them of that. We just introduce them as a special agent of the FBI. Mr. KAss. Mr. Conrad, you have approximately a year of on-the- job training? Mr. CONRAD. Yes, sir. Mr. KAss. Do most people qualify at. the end of the year? . Mr. CONRAD. Yes; they all qualify. ~ Mr. KAss. Do you give them a test of any sort, to determine whether they qualify? Mr. CONRAD. No. They are under continuing supervision and review so we have a very definite idea at the end of that time, and normally well in advance of the end of the year, that their quahfica- tions are going to be satisfactory. Mr. KASS. Mr. Mohr, when Mr. Herndon was discussing the tech- nique for giving a polygraph examination, he talked about the control question-questions not relevant to the issue. at hand. Quite often the person would have to go into a lot of information and tell the 545 PAGENO="0038" 546 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS' operator a lot of information not pertinent to the case at hand. Isn't this possibly an invasion of the person's privacy? Mr. MOHR. I don't know what you mean by a lot of information that the person will give. First of all, you must remember he has volunteered to take this test and to be interviewed. He is there because he wants to be interviewed. He is a cooperative interviewee, and any information that he may offer, if it is not relevant to the particular situation, the case agent would not even record it, or make a record of it. Mr. KASS. What if a person admits to other crimes so as to clear himself on the machine? Mr. MOHR. If he admits to other Federal crimes, we would present those to the U.S. attorney for his opinion as to prosecution. If he admits to a local crime, we would submit it to the local authorities fcr their consideration, advising them it was obtained from this mdi- vidual during the interview with him. When he signs the waiver, and he is told of his rights, he is also told if he makes any statements they may be used against him in court. Mr. KASS. But take the actual polygraph situation where the per- son is confronted with the examiner's statement that it appears that you are deceiving, or something is bothering you on this question, what is it, so we can clear it up. Isn't the person more or less required to clear himself there? Mr. MOHR. No ; there is no more compulsion to answer that than any other question that you might put to him. He might not elect to try to clarify why this reaction appeared on the machine. Mr. KAss. But the operator is saying "Mr. So and So, it appears that you are deceiving, something is bothering you. Why don't you tell me and clear it up?" Mr. MOHR. That is right. Most of them will tell you and they have at least what appears to be a logical reason to them. Mr. KASS. What happens if the person doesn't clear it up, doesn't talk about it, and refuses to talk about it? Mr. MOHR. I would say in that case you were interviewing some- body who was not being cooperative, like any other interview. Mr. KASS. At that point would you continue the examination, Mr. Herndon? Mr. HERNDON. Yes; I would keep interviewing the man. I would perhaps try to sympathize with him, because maybe he is concerned about some skeletons in his family closet. The thing we have to remember is that this is basically an interview and it is our job to try to get these people to tell the truth. If something is troubling them, if it is pertinent to the offense, it is our job to get them to tell us. But if the skeletons have nothing to do with the offense, I indicate to them that they don't have to tell me a thing about it, that is their privilege. Mr. KASS. Mr. Conrad, is memory important in the lie detector technique? Mr. CONRAD. On the part of the operator? Mr. K~ss. On the part of the subject. Mr. CONRAD. I would say certainly it is. We are asking him to recall something. Mr. KASS. How do you know he is recalling that something? PAGENO="0039" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DET ECTORS" 547 Mr. CONRAD. We don't. We are faced with an individual, we are interviewing him. It has to be handled on an individual basis. And from some of them we get information and from some of them we do not. But in all cases it is a voluntary cooperative effort on his part, if we do get anything. Mr. KAss. Is it possible that he is recalling things or that his physiological responses are recalling things he is not even aware of? Mr. CONRAD. That is remotely possible. Mr. KASS. if, for example, you asked him the question "Do you drink coffee," and he said "Yes," but because his parents had vio- lently prohibited him from drinking coffee, he was getting a response. How do you know what response the person is giving, whether it is the so-called voluntary response or the so-called unconscious response? Mr. CONRAD. I don't think we have any way of knowing which it is. All we have is a response from an individual. Mr. KASS. And you keep trying to explore it then with him until he gives you a satisfactory answer? Mr. CONRAD. Right. We give him a chance to explain it. Mr. Moss. Well, gentlemen, I again want to express my apprecia- tion for your appearance here and your cooperation. We have covered all the points originally planned for the two mornings, and it will not be necessary for you to return tomorrow morning. The committee will stand adjourned until the call of the Chair. (Thereupon, at 12 noon the hearing was adjourned.) PAGENO="0040" PAGENO="0041" APPENDIXES (Exhibits 1 through 34 appear in parts 1-4 of these hearings) EXHIBITS 35A-35J-STATE STATUTES AND CODES RELATING TO POLYGRAPHS AND OTHER LIE DETECTION DEVICES EXHIBIT 35A-ALASKA-LAWS OF ALASKA, 1964 CHAPTER 36 AN ACT Relating to examinations in which polygraphs or other lie-detector devices are used Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska: SECTION 1. AS 23.10 is amended by adding a new section to article 1 to read: SEC. 23.10.037. Lie-Detector Tests. (a) No person either personally or through an agent or representative may request or suggest to a person in his employ or to a person who has an application for employment pending before him or re- quire as a condition of employment that the employee or app]icant submit to an examination in which a polygraph or other lie-detecting device is used. (b) The provisions of (a) of this section do not apply to the state or a political subdivision of the state when dealing with policemen in its employ or with per- sons applying to be employed as policeman. (c) In this section "person" includes the state and a political subdivision of the state. (d) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. Law without signature April 2, 1964. EXHIBIT 35B-CALIFORNIA Chapter 1881 of &atutes and Amendments to the Codes, California, 1963, page 3866, reads as follows: SECTION 1. Section 432.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read: "432.2 No employer shall demand or require any applicant for employment or propective employment or any employee to submit to or take a polygraph, lie detector or similar test or examination as a condition of employment or con- tinued employment. The prohibition of this section does not apply to the federal government or any agency thereof or the state government or any agency or local subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, counties, cities, cities and counties, cities, district, authorities, and agencies." EXHIBIT 35C-ILLIN0I5 (SMITH-IIURD, ILLINoIS STATUTES, ANNOTATED, TITLE 38, SEc. 951 ET SEQ.) AN ACT To provide for licensing and regulating detection of deception examiners, and to make an appro~ priation in connection therewith Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois, represented `in the General Assembly: SECTION 1. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: "Detec- tion of Deception Examiner," hereinafter referred to as "Examiner" means any person who uses any device or instrument to test or question individuals for the purpose of detecting deception. "Internship" means the study of detection of deception and the administration of detection of deception examinations by a trainee under the personal supervision 549 PAGENO="0042" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" and control of an examiner in accordance with a course of study as prescribed by the Department at the commencement of such Internship. "Person" includes any natural person, partnership, association, corporation or trust. "Department" means the Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Registration and Educa- tion of the State of Illinois. "Committee" means the Detection of Deception Examiner Committee provided for in this Act. "Him" means both the male and female gender. SEC. 2. The practice of the detection of deception in the State of Illinois is declared to affect the public health, safety and welfare and is subject to regulation and control in the public interest. SEC. 3. Every examiner shall use an instrument which records permanently and simultaneously the subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument may record additional psychological changes pertinent to the detection of deception. An examiner shall, upon written request of a person examined, make known the results of such test to the person examined within 5 days of receipt of the written request. SEC. 4. It is unlawful for any person to administer detection of deception examinations, or attempt to hold himself out as an Examiner, without a license issued by the Department, except insofar as qualified by sections 5 and 12 of this Act. Provided, however, That this shall not prohibit the use of detection of deception equipment by a person licensed to practice medicine in all its branches under the Medical Practice Act of Illinois when the results are to be used in research. SEC. 5. Any person may administer detection of deception examinations in this State without license for not to exceed twenty days during any calendar year. Provided, however, that any time prior to administering said examinations, such person shall pay a registration fee and file with the Department a sworn affi- davit that said person- (a) is a citizen of the United States; and (b) is at least 21 years of age; and (c) has administered detection of deception examinations for a period of at least two years using the instrumentation prescribed in section 3 of this Act; and (d) has not been convicted of a misdemeanor invlving moral turpitude or a felony, or who has not been released of discharged under other than honorable conditions from any of the armed services of the United States. The registrant under this section is subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to examiners except sections 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 26, and 30, and the Director shall deny, rescind, or revoke the registration of any person who at any time violoated said provisions of this Act. The registration fee is nonrefundable. SEC. 6. On the effective date of this Act, any person who has actually engaged in the occupation, business, or profession of an examiner before April 1, 1963, ~tnd who has used for that period the instrumentation prescribed in section 3, shall, upon application within one year after the effective date of this Act and payment of the required licenes fee, be issued a license hereunder, without cx- amination, provided, however, that the Director may require such applicant to submit satisfactory proof that he has so engaged for such period. SEC. 7. None of the powers, duties, or functions of the Department or the Director thereof under this Act shall be exercised except under the action and written report of the Detection of Deception Examiner Committee. Such corn- rnittee shall be composed of five individuals appointed by the Director. The members of the committee shall have been engaged continuously in the State of Illinois for a period of at least five years as examiners. Three members must be actively engaged in the private, or commercial, practice of detection of decep- tion and two members must be primarily engaged in the detection of deception for the State of Illinois or a county or municipality within the State of Illinois. Each member shall serve for a term of five years. The action or report in writing of a majority of the committee shall be suffi- cient authority upon which the Director of Registration and Education may act. In designating the persons to act, the Director of Registration and Education shall give due consideration to recommendations by members of the profession and by organizations therein. Whenever the Director is satisfied that substan- I 550 I I PAGENO="0043" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 551 tial justice has not been done in an examination, he may order a reexamination by the same or other examiners. SEC. 8. Applications for original licenses shall be made to the Department in writing on forms prescribed by the Department and shall be accompanied by the required fee, which shall not be returnable. Any such application shall require such information as in the judgment of the Department will enable the Depart- ment to pass on the qualifications of the applicant for a license. SEC. 9. The license of an examiner which has not been revoked or is not suspended shall be renewed annually upon payment of the required fee by the examiner. SEC. 10. Each nonresident applicant for an original license or a renewal license, shall file an irrevocable consent that actions against the applicant may be filed in any appropriate court of any county or municipality of this State in which the plaintiff resides or in which some part of the transaction occurred out of which the alleged cause of action arose and that process in any action may be served on the applicant by leaving two copies thereof with the Director of the Department. Such consent shall stipulate and agree that such service of process shall be taken and held to be valid and binding for all purposes. The Director shall send forthwith one copy of the process to the applicant at the address shown on the records of the Department by registered or certified mail. SEC. 11. A person is qualified to receive a license as an examiner: A. Who is at least 21 years of age; and B. Who is a citizen of the United States: and C. Who establishes that he is a person of honesty, truthfulness, integrity and moral fitness; and D. Who has not been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony, or who has not been released or discharged under other than honorable conditions from any of the armed services of the United States ; and E. Who has passed an examination conducted by the Examiner Committee, or under its supervision, to determine his competency to obtain a license to practice as an examiner; and F. Who has had conferred upon him an academic degree, at least at the bac- calaureate level, from a college or university accredited by the Department; and G. Who has satisfactorily completed not less than six months of internship training. SEC. 12. The Department shall issue an internship license to a trainee upon application and payment of the required fee which application shall contain such information as may be reasonably required by the Department. An internship license shall be valid for the term of twelve months from the date of issue. The Department may renew or extend any internship license upon good cause shown for any term not to exceed twelve months. SEC. 13. Each license shall be issued for the term of one calendar year or for such part thereof as remains at the time of the issuance thereof. Each license shall be renewed during the month of November of each year. Each license not renewed during November of each year shall expire on December 1, of that year. An examiner whose license has expired may be reinstated at any time within five years after the expiration thereof, by making a renewal application therefor and by paying the renewal license fee and all lapsed renewal fees for each year since the expiration of his license. However, any examiner whose license expired while he was (1) in Federal service on active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States, or the State militia called into service or training, or (2) in training or education under the supervision of the United States preliminary to induction into the military service, may have his license renewed, reinstated or restored without paying any lapsed renewal fees if within two years after honorable termination of such service, training or education except under conditions other than honorable, he furnishes the Department with satisfactory evidence to the effect that he has been so engaged and that his service, training or education has been so terminated. A license or duplicate license must be prominently displayed at the principal place of business of every examiner. Each license shall be signed by the Director and shall be issued under the seal of the Department. Notice in writing shall be given to the Department by such license holder of any change of principal business location whereupon, the Department shall issue a new license for the unexpired period upon payment of the required fee. A change of business location without notification to the Department and without the issuance by it of a new license shall automatically suspend the license theretofore issued. PAGENO="0044" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" SEC. 14. The Department may refuse to issue or may suspend or revoke a license for any one of the following grounds: A. Material misstatement in the application for original license or in the application for any renewal license under this Act. B. Wilful disregard or violation of this Act or of any regulation or rule issued pursuant thereto. C. Conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. D. Making any wilful misrepresentation or false promises or causing to be printed any false or misleading advertisement for the purpose of directly or indirectly obtaining business or trainees. E. Having demonstrated incompetency to act as an examiner as defined under this Act. F. Allowing one's license under this Act to be used by an unlicensed person in violation of the provisions of this Act. G. Wilfully aiding or abetting another in the violation of this Act or of any rule issued by the Department pursuant thereto. H. Where the license holder has been adjudged mentally ill, mentally de- ficient or in need of mental treatment as provided in the Mental Health Code. I. Failing, within a reasonable time, to provide information requested by the Department as the result of a formal or informal complaint to the Dep~trtment, which would indicate a violation of this Act. SEC. 15. Any unlawful act or violation of any of the provisions of this Act upon the part of any examiner or trainee, shall not be cause for revocation of the license of any other examiner for whom the offending examiner may have been employed, unless it shall appear that the examiner has wilfully aided or abetted the actions or activities of the offending examiner or trainee. SEC. 16. The Department shall prepare annually a list of the names and addresses of all examiners and trainees and of all persons whose licenses have been suspended or revoked within the previous year, which list shall be mailed to the county clerk of each county of the State and be held by such county clerk as a public record. SEC. 17. The Department may upon its own motion and shall upon the verified complaint in writing of any person setting forth facts which if proved would constitute grounds for refusal, suspension or revocation of a license under this Act, investigate the actions of any applicant or any person or persons hold- ing or claiming to hold a license. The Department shall, before refusing to issue and before suspension of revocation of a license, at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing, notify in writing the applicant for, or holder of a license, of the nature of the charges and that a hearing will be held on the date desig- nated. The hearing shall determine whether the applicant or holder, hereinafter called the respondent is privileged to hold such license, and shall afford the re- spondent an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel in reference thereto. Such written notice may be served by delivery of the same personally to the respondent at the address of his last notification to the Department. At the time and place fixed in the notice, the Committee shall proceed to hear the charges and both the respondent and complainant shall be accorded ample opportunity to present in person or by counsel such statements, testimony, cvi- dence and argument as may be pertinent to the charges or to the defense thereto. The Committee may continue such hearing from time to time. If the Committee shall not be sitting at the time and place fixed in the notice or at the time and place to which the hearing shall have been continued, the Director shall continue such hearing for a period not to exceed thirty days, unless extended by stipulation of both parties. SEC. 18. The Department, at its expense, shall provide a stenographer to take down the testimony and preserve a record of all proceedings at the hearing of any case involving the refusal to issue or the suspension or revocation of a license. The notice of hearing, complaint and all other documents in the nature of pleadings and written motions filed in the proceedings, the transcript of testimony, the report of the Committee and orders of the Department shall be the records of such proceedings. The Department shall furnish a transcript of such record to any person or persons interested in such hearing upon the payment therefor of 75 cents per page for each original transcript and 5 cents per page for each carbon copy thereof ordered with the original; provided that the charge for any part of such transcript ordered and paid for previous to the writing of the original record thereof shall be 25 cents per page. In any case involving the refusal to issue or the suspension or revocation of a license, a copy of the Committee's report shall be served upon the respondent 552 PAGENO="0045" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" by the Department, either personally or by registered or certified mail as pro- vided in this Act for the service of the notice of hearing. Within twenty days after such service, the respondent may present to the Department a motion in writing for a rehearing, which written motion shall specify the particular grounds therefor. If no motion for rehearing is filed, then upon the expiration of the time specified for filing such a motion, or if a motion for rehearing is denied, then upon such denial the Director may enter an order in accordance with recommen- dations of the Committee. If the respondent shall order and pay for a transcript of the record within the time for filing a motion for rehearing, the twenty day period within which such a motion may be filed shall commence upon the delivery of the transcript to the respondent. SEC. 19. Any circuit or superior court or any judge thereof, either in term time or vacation, may, upon application of the Director or of the applicant or `~ licensee against whom proceedings upon section 17 of this Act are pending, enter an order requiring the attendance of witnesses and their testimony, and the production of documents, papers, files, books, and records in connection with any hearing in any proceedings under that section. The court or judge may compel obedience to its or his order by proceedings for contempt. SEC. 20. Any person affected by a final administrative decision of the Depart- ment may have such decision reviewed judicially by the circuit or superior court of the county wherein such person resides. If the plaintiff in the review pro- ceeding is not a resident of this State, the venue shall be in Sangamon County. The provisions of the "Administrative Review Act", approved May 8, 1945, and all amendments and modifications thereof, and the rules adopted pursuant there- to, shall apply to and govern all proceedings for the judicial review of final ad- ministrative decisions of the Department hereunder. The term "administrative decision" is defined as in Section 1 of said "Administrative Review Act". The Department shall not be required to certify the record of the proceeding unless the plaintiff in the review proceedings shall first pay to the Department the sum of 75~ per page of suTch record. Exhibits shall be certified without cost. SEC. 21. Upon the revocation or suspension of any license, the licensee shall forthwith surrender the license or licenses to the Department and if the licensee fails to do so, the Department shall have the right to seize the same. SEC. 22. The Director, on the recommendation of the Committee, may issue regulations, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for the administration and enforcement thereof and may prescribe forms which shall be issued in connec- tion therewith. SEC. 23. No action or counterclaim shall be maintained by any person in any court in this State with respect to any agreement or services for which a license is required by this Act or to recover the agreed price or any compensation under any such agreement, or for such services for which a license is required by this Act without alleging and providing that such person had a valid license at the time of making such agreement or doing such work. SEC. 24. If any person violates the provision of this Act, the Director may, in the name of the people of the State of Illinois, through the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, apply, in any court of competent jurisdiction, for an order enjoining such violation or for an order enforcing compliance with this Act. Upon the filing of a verified petition in such court, the court or any judge thereof, if satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that such person has violated this Act, may issue a temporary injunction, without notice or bond, enjoining such continued violation, and if it is established that such person has violated or is violating this Act, the court, or any judge thereof, may summarily try and punish the offender for contempt of court. Proceedings under this section shall be in addi- tion to, and not in lieu of, all other remedies and penalties provided by this Act. SEC. 25. An order or a certified copy thereof, over the seal of the Department and purporting to be signed by the Director, shall be prima facie proof thereof: (a) That such signature is the genuine signature of the Director; (b) That such Director is duly appointed and qualified; (c) That the Committee and the members thereof are qualified to act. SEC. 26. The fee to be paid by an applicant for an examination to determine his fitness to receive an examiner's license is $50. The fee to be paid for an examiner's renewal license is $25. The fee to be paid for an internship license is $10. The fee to be paid for a renewal internship license is $5. The fee to be paid by an unlicensed examiner to be registered under the pro- visions of section 5 is $5. 553 I PAGENO="0046" USE OF POLYGRAPHS' AS "LIE DETECTORS" The fee to be paid for the issuance of a duplicate license or a license indicating a change of address is $5. The fee to be paid for the reinstatement of an examiner's license within five years of the lapse thereof shall be $5 and all of the lapsed renewal fees. The fee to be paid for the restoration of a license which lapsed more than five years preceding the application for restoration shall be $50. This section in regard to fees shall not apply to any examiner in the exclusive employment of the United States of America, the State of Illinois, any county, municipality, or political subdivision in this State, any department, bureau or agency of any of the foregoing, or any examiner thereof in the pursuit of his official duties. SEC. 27. Should any one or more provisions of this Act be held invalid, such invalidity shall in no manner affect any of the other provisions hereof. Sxc. 28. Any person who violates any provision of this Act or any person who falsely states or represents that he has been or is an examiner or trainee shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25, nor more than $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not to exceed six months, or both. All fines under this Act shall inure and be paid to the county in which the prosecution is maintained. Sxc. 29. At any time after the suspension or revocation of any license, the Department may restore it to the accused person, upon the written recommenda- tion of the Committee. SEC. 30. An applicant who is an examiner, licensed under the laws of another State or territory of the United States, may be issued a license' without examina- tion by the Department, in its discretion, upon payment of a fee of $50, and the production of satisfactory proof: (a) That the applicant is at least 21 years of age; and (b) That the applicant is a citizen of the United States ; and (c) That he is of good moral character; and (d) That the requirements for the licensing of examiners in such particular State or territory of the United States were at the date of licensing, substan- tially equivalent to the requirements then in force in this State; and (e) That the applicant had lawfully engaged in the administration of poly- graph examinations under the laws of such State or territory for at least two years prior to his application for license hereunder; and (f) That such other State or territory grants similar reciprocity to license holders of this State. SEc. 31. Appropriation. EXHIBIT 35D-ILLIN0IS SMITH-HUED STATUTES TITLE 38 § 736.2 Lie detector tests-Restrictions on court In the course of any criminal trial the court shall not require, request or suggest that the defendant submit to a polygraphic detection deception test, commonly known as a lie detector test to questioning under the effect of thiopental sodium or to any other test or questioning by means of any mechanical device or chemical substance. TITLE 110 § 54.1 (Civil Practice Act, § 54. 1) . Lie detector tests-Limitations Imthe course of any civil trial or pre-trial proceeding the court shall not require that the plaintiff or defendant submit to a polygraphic detection deception test, commonly known as a lie detector test or require, suggest or request that the plaintiff or defendant submit to questioning under the effect of thiopental sodium or to any other test or questioning by means of any chemical substance. I 554 PAGENO="0047" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 555 EXHIBIT 35E-KENTTJCKY SESSION LAWS OF KENTUCKY, 1963 CHAPTER 78 (S.B. 63) AN ACT Relating to "Detection of Deception Examiners," for licensing and regulating same Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: SECTION 1. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Detection of Deception Examiner," hereinafter referred to as "Examiner," means any person, other than on a trainee, who uses any device or instrument to test or question individuals for the purpose of detecting deception. ( 2) "Trainee" means any person who administers detection of deception examinations under the personal supervision and control of an examiner. (3) "Person" means any natural person, partnership, association, corporation or trust. (4) "Department" means the Department of Public Safety of the Common- wealth of Kentucky. (5) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. SEC. 2. Every examiner shall use an instrument which records permanently and simultaneously the subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument may record additional physiological changes pertinent to the detection of deception. SEC. 3. (1) No person shall administer a detection of deception examination. as set forth in Section 1 of this Act, or any imitation thereof, without first securing a trainee's license or an examiner's license. Each application for a trainee's license shall be made to the department within ten days of the com-. mencement of the trainee's internship, and said application shall contain such information as may be reasonably required by the department The department shall issue the trainee license free of charge. Each application for an examiner's license shall be made to the department in writing on forms provided by the department and shall contain such information as is required by the department to determine the eligibility of the applicant. Each application for an examiner's license shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty dollars, which is nonrefundable. (2) Each applicant for an examiner's license shall submit his fingerprints to the department together with a sworn affidavit that said applicant: (a) Is a citizen of the United States; (b) Is at least twenty-one years of age; (c) Has administered detection of deception examinations for a period of at least two years using the instrumentation prescribed in Section 2 of this Act; (d) Has completed a course of formal training in detection of deception in an institution accepted by the department; and (e) Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony, or who has not been released or discharged under other than honorable conditions from any of the Armed Services of the United States, or any branch of the state, city or federal government. (3) Upon receipt of an application for a trainee's license or for an examiner's license, the commissioner shall investigate each application, and no license will be issued until said investigation. is complete. SEC. 4. On the effective date of this Act, any person who has actually engaged in the occupation, business or profession of an examiner for a period of five years, and who has used for that period the instrumentation prescribed in Section 2 of this Act, shall, upon application within one year after the effective date of this Act and upon payment of the required license fee, be issued a license hereunder, without completion of formal training in an institution; provided, however, that the commissioner may require such applicant to submit satisfactory proof that he has so engaged for such period and has the other qualifications of an examiner as are set forth in this Act. SEC. 5. (1) Each examiner's license shall be issued for the term of one calen- dar year or for such part thereof as remains at the time of the issuance thereof. Each examiner's license shall be renewed during the month of December of each year, and each examiner's not so renewed shall expire on December 31, of that year. A renewal fee of fifteen dollars shall accompany each renewal applica- tion for the examiner's license. PAGENO="0048" 556 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" n five years ii he furnish( and that I missioner sh~ during the ex (3) Each ~ The de~ ient n ~ ~~LflOtt 6. (1) A ii place of - e is five he has D termin~ ~u. ivestigate each applicant of eighteen months. )Ofl good cause shown served o ner of the `~ of prc ci mail at `~ may deny, suspend or revoke any license on any one ~iient in the application for a license or in the application ~gard or violation of this Act or of any regulation or rule issued ~ed guilty of the commission [ses or causing to be ~irpose of directly or ct as an examiner the interests of Act to be used by an unlicensed person r in the violation of this Act or of any rhasu aent as providec time, to pi ~r activitic~ of the offen~ g examiner or ~rtment shall publish, at least annually, a list of the names examiners and trainees and of all persons whose licenses I ii~ig the ren shall be i 11 automal ddent applica] `~`~ani PAGENO="0049" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" have been suspended or revoked within that one year, together with such other information relative to the enforcement of the provisions of this Act as it may deem of interest to the public in the profession. One such list shall be mailed to the County Clerk of each county of the Commonwealth and shall be held by such County Clerk as a public record. Such list shall also be mailed by the department to any person ii~ the Commonwealth upon request. SEC. 11. The department may upon its own motion and shall upon the verified complaint in writing of any person setting forth facts which if proved would constitute grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Act, investigate the actions of any applicant or any person holding or claiming to hold a licensa. The department shall, before denial, suspension, or revocation of a license, at least ten days prior to i~he date set for the hearing, notify in writing the applicant or holder of a license of the nature of the charges and that a hearing will be held on the date designated. The hearings shall determine whether the applicant or holder, hereinafter cal~ed the respondent, is privileged to hold such license, and shall afford the respondent an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel in reference thereto. Such written notice may be served by personal delivery to the respondent or by mailing the same by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the place of business last specified by the respondent on the records of the department. At the time and place fixed in the notice, the commissioner shall proceed to hear the charges, and both the respondent and complainant shall be accorded ample opportunity to present in person or by counsel such statements, testimony, evidence and argu- ment as may be pertinent to the charges or to the defense thereto. The commis- sioner may continue such hearing from time to time. If the commissioner shall not be sitting at the time and place fixed in the notice or at the time and place to which the hearing shall have been continued, the commissioner shall continue such hearing for a period not to exceed thirty days. SEC. 12. (1) The department, at its expense, shall provide a stenographer to take down the testimony and preserve~a record of all proceedings at the hearing of any easEl involving the denial, suspension or revocation of a license. The notice of hearing, complaint, and all other documents in the nature of pleadings and written motions filed in the proceedings, the transcript of testimony, the report of the commissioner and orders of the department shall be the records of such proceedings. The department shall furnish a transcript of such record to any person interested in such hearing upon payment therefor of seventy- five cents per page for each original transcript and twenty-five cents per page for each carbon copy thereof ordered with the original : provided, however, the charge for any part of such transcript ordered and paid for previous to the writing of the original record thereof shall be twenty-five cents per page. (2) In any case involving the denial, suspension or revocation of a license, a copy of the commissioner's report shall be served upon the respondent by the department, either personally or by registered or certified mail as provided in this Act for the service of the notice of hearing. Within twenty days after such service, the respondent may present to the department a motion in writing for a rehearing, which written motion shall specify the particular grounds therefor. If no motion for rehearing is filed then upon the expiration of the time specified for filing such a motion, or if a motion for rehearing is denied, then upon such denial the commissioner may enter an order in accordance with recommendations of the department. If the respondent shall order and pay for a transcript of the record within the time for filing a motion for rehearing, the twenty-day period within which such a motion may be filed shall commence upon the delivery of the transcript to the respondent. SEC. 13. Any circuit court, either in term time or vacation, may, upon applica- tion of the commissioner or of the applicant or licensee against whom proceedings upon Section 11 of this Act are pending, enter an order requiring the attendance of witnesses and their testimony, and the production of documents, papers, files, books and records in connection with any hearing in any proceedings under that Section. SEC. 14. Any person affected by a final administrative decision of the depart- ment may have such decision reviewed judicially by the Circuit Court of Franklin County. SEc. 15. Upon the revocation or suspension of any license, the licensee shall forthwith surrender the license to the department, and if the licensee fails to do so, the department shall have the right to seize the same. SEC. 16. If any person violates the provisions of this Act, the commissioner shall, in the name of the People of the Commonwealth of ICentucky, through 557 I PAGENO="0050" I EXHIBIT 35F-MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS ANNOTATED, 149 GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO EMPLOYMENT § 19B. Lie detector tests; use as condition of employment; penalty No employer shall require or subject any employee to any lie detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment. Any person violating this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars. Added St. 1959, c. 255. Approved April 28, 1959. EXHIBIT 35G-NEw MEXICO SESSION LAWS OF NEW MEXICO, 1963 Regular Session CHAPTER. 225, LAWS 1963 House Bill No. 341 AN ACT Relating to the Practice of Polygraphy; Providing for a licensing board; and establishing pro- cedure for registration, qualification, and licensure Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico: SECTION 1. "Polygraphy" and "Practice of Polygraphy" defined. As used in this act: A. "Polygraphy" means the recording of tracings of several different pulsations in the human body simultaneously for the purpose of determining veracity ; and B. "Practice of polygraphy" means the employment of any instrument de- signed to record simultaneously the physiological changes in human respiration, cardiovascular activity and galvanic skin resistance, or reflex, to determine veracity and to detect deception or the reading and interpretation of polygraph records and results. SEC. 2. License to Practice Polygraphy. It is unlawful for any person to prac- tice polygraphy, offer his services in the capacity of a polygrapher or purport to be a polygrapher without a license issued by the state board of examiners in polygraphy. SEC. 3. Board of Examiners in Polygraphy. There is created a board of ex- aminers in polygraphy to be comprised of three members to be appointed by the Governor for terms of three years: Provided, however, of the first board appointed, one member shall have a term of one year, one member shall have a term of two years and one member shall have a term of three years. Any~ appointment to fill a board vacancy shall be for the' unexpired term. Board members shall b~ 558 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, apply, in any court of competent jurisdiction, for an order enjoining such violation or for an order enforcing compliance with this Act. Proceedings under this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other remedies and penalties provided by this Act. . SEC. 17. An order or a certified copy thereof, over the seal of the department and purporting to be signed by the commissioner, shall be prima fade proof thereof; (1) That such signature is the genuine signature of the commissioner; (2) That such commissioner is duly appointed and qualified; and (3) That the commissioner and department thereof are qualified,to act. SEC. 18. Section 3(1), Section 5(1), and Section 6(1) of this Act, relating to fees charged applicants for a license, shall not apply to any department of the United States or any agency of the city, county or state of the Commonwealth of Kentucky provided that no fee is charged for administration of the test. SEC. 19. Should any one or n'iore provisions of this Act be held invalid, such invalidity shall in no manner affect any of the other provisions hereof. SEC. 20. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, for each violation, be fined not less than twenty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars. Approved March 9, 1962. PAGENO="0051" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" qualified electors of New Mexico ; one member shall be a licensed doctor of med- icine ; and two members shall be polygraphers actively engaged in the practice in New Mexico. The board shall meet annually in Santa Fe, upon a date to be set by resolution of the board, for the purpose of transacting business. The board members shall receive per diem and mileage as provided in the Per Diem and Mileage Act, and shall receive no other compensation, perquisite or allow- ance~ SEC. 4. Board Organization. Appointment of Registrar. Within sixty days of their appointment the board members shall meet and organize, designating one member president and one member registrar. The registrar of the board shall be ex-officio secretary-treasurer of the board and may receive payment, for service and remuneration for expenses in carrying out his necessary duties, in an amount to be determined by the board. SEC. 5. Duties of Registrar-Records. The registrar of the board shall keep a registration book in which shall be entered the name of each licensee, date of license issue, address of licensee, record of fee payments and any other informa- tion concerning licensed polygraphers deemed necessary or desirable by the board. The registrar shall maintain a minute book recording all transactions of the board and shall keep financial records of disbursements and receipts in manner prescribed by the director of the department of finance and administration. records of the board shall be maintained in Santa Fe. SEC. 6. Applications for Registration and License. Persons seeking registration and licensing as a polygrapher shall make written application to the board of examiners in polygraphy, upon forms supplied by the registrar of the board. Application forms shall be designed and prescribed by the board to elicit all information necessary to determine whether an applicant is qualified to be exam- med as a polygrapher. SEC. 7. Fees-Renewals-Suspension and Revocation. Each application for registration and license shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred dollars ($100) payable to the state board of examiners in polygraphy. This initial fee is not refundable and shall cover the costs of processing the application; and it shall include, for successful candidates, the annual license fee for the year fol- lowing registration and licensing. On or before July 1 of each year, every regis- ~ tered and licensed polygrapher shall transmit to the registrar a renewal fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) accompanied by the person's name, address, and registration number, and he shall receive therefor a renewal license certificate. A license granted by the board shall be automatically suspended if the holder fails to apply for renewal within a period of three months after July 1 of each year. Any sus- pended license may be restored by the board upon payment of a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) in addition to the unpaid renewal fee. Failure to renew a license within one year from the date of suspension shall cause the license to be auto- matically revoked. SEC.8. Qualifications for Licensing and Registration. To be eligible and qual- ified for registration and licensing as a polygrapher, a person shall: A. have attained the age of twenty-five years; B. be a citizen of the United States; C. be a graduate of a high school or have completed an equivalent course of study, as determined by an examination conducted by the state board of education; D. be of good moral character; and E. successfully pass examination by the state board of examiners in poiy- graphy. SEC. 9. Examinations. The state board of examiners in polygraphy shall, by examination, or by such other means as it shall deem advisable, determine whether each applicant for registration and license possesses the necessary knowledge and skill required to practice polygraphy in New Mexico. SEC. 10. Refusal to License-Suspension and Revocation. The state board of examiners in polygraphy may refuse to issue a license or, if a license has been issued, may suspend or revoke the license of any person found, by the board: A. to have been coi~victed of a crime involving moral turpitude; B. to have made false representations to the board for the purpose of securing registration and license; 0. to be chronically or persistently inebriate or addicted to drugs; * D. to have been adjudged incompetent or insane; E. to have been guilty of unprofessional conduct; or F. to be incompetent. ~ SEc. 11. Unprofessional Conduct. Unprofessional conduct consists of those acts, determined by the state board of examiners in polygraphy, to be inconsistent 559 PAGENO="0052" I USE OF POLYGRAPI~S AS "LIE DETECTORS" with the public welfare, and shall include conduct tending to deceive or defraud, obtaining fees by misrepresentation, charging unusual, unreasonable or exorbitant fees, fee "splitting," and spurious advertising. SEC. 12. Deposit and Use of Funds. All funds received by the registrar are to be deposited with the state treasurer to be credited to the "state board of examiners in polygraphy fund." The funds shall be used solely for the adminis- tration of registration and licensing procedures conducted by the state board of examiners in polygraphy. SEC. 13. The state board of examiners in polygraphy is empowered to pro- mulgate rules and regulations it shall deem necessary or desirable. The board may obtain the assistance of the attorney general to obtain necessary legal assistance. The board may expend the sums from the state examiners in polyg- raphy fund in accordnace with annual budgets approved by the department of finance and administration. All expenditures shall be made upon vouchers signed by the registrar of the board. SEC. 14. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a mis- demeanor. Approved March 21, 1963. EXHIBIT 3511-OREGoN Regular Session CHAPTER 249, LAWS 1963 House Bill No. 1453 AN ACT Relating to lie detector tests as a condition for employment; and providing penalties Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. No person, or agent or representative of such person, shall require as a condition for employment or continuation of employment, any person or em- ploye to take a polygraph test or any form of a so-called lie detector test. SEC. 2. Violation of section 1 of this Act is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both. Approved May 6, 1963. EXHIBIT 351-RHoDE ISLAND CHAPTER 229 AN ACT Prohibiting the lisa of Lie Detector Tests by Employers as a Condition of Employment It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows: SECTION 1. Title 28 of the general laws, entitled "Labor and labor relations," as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following chapter: Chapter 6.1 Lie detector tests as conditions of employment. 28-6.1-1. Lie detector tests prohibited.-No employer or agent of any em- ployer shall require or subject any employee to any lie detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment. 28-6.1-2. Pei~alty for violations-Exception.Any employer who subjects any person employed by him, or any person applying for employment, to a lie detector test, or causes, directly or indirectly, any such employee or applicant to take a lie detector test, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars. This section shall not tipply to lie detector tests administered by law enforcement agencies in the performance of their official duties. SEC. 2. This act shall take effect UpOn its passage and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 560 I PAGENO="0053" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DET]~QPORS" EXHIBIT 35J-WAsHn~qToN, Regular Se~s1on CHA~TER~ 152, I~AWS 1965 House Bill No. 100 AN ACT Relatiug to isbor; adding new sections to chapter 249, Laws of 1909, and to ehapter 49.44 ROW' ~nd prescribing penalties Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State ~of Washington: SECTIoN 1. There is added to chapter 249, Laws of 1909, and to chapter 49.44 RCW a new section to read as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require any employee or prospective employee to take or be subjected to any lie detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment; Provided, That this section shall not apply to (1) persons in the field of public law enforcement, or (2) persons who dispense narcotics or dangerous drugs, or (3) persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security. SEc. 2. There is added to chapter 249, Laws of 1909, and to chapter 49.44 RCW a new section to read as follows: Any person violating the provisions of section 1 of this act shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Approved, March 23, 1965. EXHIBIT 36-REPoRT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, APPENDIX XVII: POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION OF JACK RUBY PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS I 561 s desire to be Lth? hat, Jack. nfidence I have in it, ~t any kind of test, ant it. I wouldn't other witness, but if you want PAGENO="0054" USE OF POLYGRAPhS AS "LIE DETECTORS" of the proceedings where in the very last portion of the transcribed hearings Ruby states: ~ "Mr. RUBY. All I want to do is to tell the truth, and the only way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it. "Chief Justice WARREN. That we will do for you." Following Ruby's insistence on a polygraph test, the Commission initiated arrangements to have the FBI conduct such an examination. A detailed set of questions was prepared for the polygtaph examination, which was set for July 16, 1964. A few days before the scheduled test, the Commission was informed that Ruby's sister, Eva Grant, and his counsel, Joe H. Tonahiii, opposed the polygraph on the ground that psychiatric examinations showed that his mental state was such that the test would be meaningless. The Commission was advised that Sol Dann, a Detroit attorney representing the Ruby family, had informed the Dallas office of the FBI on July 15, 1964, that a polygraph examination would affect Ruby's health and would be of questionable value according to Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a Detroit psychiatrist. On that same date, Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter discussed by telephone the polygraph examination with Defense Counsel Joe H. Tonahill, who expressed his personal opinion that a polygraph examination should be administered to Ruby. By letter dated July 15, 1964, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade requested that the polygraph examination cover the issue of premeditation as well as the de- fensive theories in the case. Against this background, it was decided that a representative of the Com- mission would travel to Dallas to determine whether Jack Ruby wanted to take the polygraph test. Since Ruby had had frequent changes in attorneys and because he was presumed to be sane, the final decision on the examination was his, especially in view of his prior personal insistence on the test. In the jury con- ference room at the Dallas jail on July 18, Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter, representing the Commission, informed Chief Defense Counsel Clayton Fowler, cocounsel Tonahill, and Assistant District Attorney William F. Alexander that the Commission was not insisting on or even requesting that the test be taken, but was merely fulfilling its commitment to make the examination available. In the event Ruby had changed his mind and would so state for the record, that would conclude the issue as far as the Commission was concerned. Chief Defense Counsel Fowler had objected to the test. He conferred with Jack Ruby in his cell and then returned stating that Ruby insisted on taking the examination. Mr. Fowler requested that (1) Dr. Tanay, the Detroit psy- chiatrist, be present; (2) the results of the test not be disclosed other than to the Commission; (3) the questions to be asked not be disclosed to the tlistrict attor- ney's office ; and (4) the results of the test be made available to defense counsel. Sheriff William Decker announced his intention to have Allan L. Sweatt, his chief criminal deputy who was also a polygraph operator, present to maintain custody of Jack Ruby while the examination was being administered. Assistant District Attorney Alexander requested a list of questions, a copy of the recording made by the polygraph machine, and a copy of the report interpreting. the test. In response to the numerous requests, the procedure was determined that the questions to be asked of Ruby would be discussed in a preliminary session in the presence of defense counsel, the assistant district attorney, and Chief Jailer E. L. Holman, who was to replace Sweatt. The assistant district attorney would not be present when Ruby answered the questions, but Jailer Holman was allowed to remain to retain custody of Ruby. No commitment was made on behalf of the Commission as to what disclosure would be made of the results of the examination. Since Dr. Tanay was not in Dallas and therefore could not be present, arrangements were made to have in attendance Dr. William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist who had previously examined and evaluated Ruby's mental state. At the conclusion of the lengthy preliminary proceedings, Ruby entered the jury conference room at 2:23 p.m. and was informed that the Commission was prepared to fulfill its commitment to offer him a polygraph examination, but was not requesting the test. On behalf of the Commission, Assistant Counsel Specter warned Ruby that anything he said could be used against him. Chief Defense Counsel Fowler advised Ruby of his objections to the examination. Ruby then stated that he wanted the polygraph examination conducted and that he wanted the results released to the public a~ promptly as possible. Special Agent Bell P. Herndon, polygraph operator of the FBI, obtained a written "consent to in- terview with polygraph" signed by Jack Ruby. Herndon then proceeded to administer the polygraph examination by breaking the questions up into series which were ordinarily nine questions in length and consisted of relevant inter- rogatories and control questions. I 562 PAGENO="0055" tISE or POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 563 ADMINISTI~ATION OF THE TEST During the course of the polygraph examination Jack Ruby answered the relevant questions as follows: "Q. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963? "A. No. "Q. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination? "A. No. "Q. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? "A. No. "Q. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? - "A. No. "Q. Areyou now a member of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the TJ.S. Government? "A. No. "Q. Have you ever been a member of any group that advocates violent over- throw of the U.S. Government? "A. No. "Q. Between the assassination and the shooting, did anybody you know tell you they knew Oswald? "A. No. "Q. Aside from anything you said to George Senator on Sunday morning, did you ever tell anyone else that you intended to shoot Oswald? "A. No. "Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to silence him? ~ "A. No. "Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Friday night? "A. No. "Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday morning? "A. No. "Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday night? "A. No. "Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Sunday morning? "A. Yes. "Q. Were you on the sidewalk at the time Lieutenant Pierce's car stopped on the ramp exit? . "A. Yes. "Q. Did you enter the jail by walking through an alleyway? "A. No. "Q. Did you walk past the guard at the time Lieutenant Pierce's car was parked on the ramp exit? - "A. Yes. "Q. Did you talk with any Dallas police officers on Sunday, November 24, prior to the shooting of Oswald? "A. No. "Q. Did you see the armored car before it entered the basement? "A. No. "Q. Did you enter the police department through a door at the rear of the east side of the jail? "A. No. "Q. After talking to Little Lynn did you hear any announcement that Oswald was about to be moved? "A. No. ~`Q. Before you left your apartment Sunday morning, did anyone tell ~ou the armored car was on the way to the police department? - "A. No. "Q. Did you get a Wall Street Journal at the Southwestern Drug Store during the week before the assassination? - - "A. No, "Q. Do you have any knowledge of a Wall Street Journal addressed to Mr. J. B. Bradshaw? "A. No. "Q. To your knowledge, did any of your friends or did you telephone the FBI in Dallas between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning? "A. No. - "Q. Did you or any of your friends to your juiowledge telephone the sheriff's office between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning? "A. No. PAGENO="0056" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" "Q. Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday, November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? "A. No. "Q. Did you go to the synagogue that Friday night? "A. Yes. "Q. Did you see Oswald in the Dallas jail on Friday night? "A. Yes. "Q' Did you have a gun with you when you went to the Friday midnight press conference at the jail? "A. No. "Q. Is everything you told the Warren Commission the entire truth? "A. Yes. "Q. Have you ever knowingly attended any meetings of the Communist Party or any other group that advocates violent overthrow of the Government? "A. No. "Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend, a member of the Communist Party? "A. No. "Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend, a member of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government? "A. No. "Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family ever attend a meeting of the Communist Party? "A. No. "Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family ever attend a meeting of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government? "A. No. "Q. Did you ever meet Oswald at your post office box? "A. No. "Q. Did you use your post office mailbox to do any business with Mexico or Cuba? "A. No. "Q. Did you do business with Castro-Cuba? "A. No. "Q. Was your trip to Cuba solely for pleasure? "A. Yes. "Q. Have you now told us the truth concerning why you carried $2,200 in cash on you? "A. Yes. "Q. Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald? "A. No. "Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of any influence of the underworld? "A. No. "Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of a labor union influence? "A. No. "Q. Did any long-distance telephone calls which you made before the assassina- tion of the President have anything to do with the assassination? "A. No. "Q. Did any of your long-distance telephone calls concern the shooting of Oswald? "A. No. "Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to save Mrs. Kennedy the ordeal of a trial? "A. Yes. "Q. Did you know the Tippit that was killed? "A. No. "Q. Did you tell the truth about relaying the message to Ray Brantley to get MeWillie a few guns? "A. Yes. "Q. Did you go to the assembly room on Friday night to get the telephone nttmber of KLIF? "A. Yes. "Q. Did you ever meet with Oswald and Officer Tippit at your club? "A. No. "Q. Were you at the Parkiand Hospital at any time on Friday? "A. No. "Q. Did you say anything when you shot Oswald other than what you've testified about? "A. No. 564 I I f PAGENO="0057" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS LIE DETECTORS" 565 "Q. Have members of sour family been physically harmed because of what you did? "A. No. "Q. Do you think members of your family are now in danger because of what you did? "(No response.) "Q. Is Mr. Fowler in danger because he is defending you? "(No response.) "Q. Did "Blackie" Hanson speak to you just before you shot Oswald? "A. No." . INTERPRETATION OF TEE TEST A polygraph examination is designed to detect physiological responses to stimuli in a carefully controlled interrogation. Such responses may accompany and indicate deception. The polygraph instrument derives its name from the Greek derivative "poly" meaning many and the word "graph" meaning writings. The polygraph chart writings consist of three separate markings placed on a graph reflecting three separate physiological reactions. A rubber tube is placed around the subject's chest to record his breathing pattern on a pneum.ograph. That device records the respiratory ratio of inhalation and exhalation strokes. The second component is called a galvanic skin response which consists of dee- trodes placed on the examinee's fingers, through which a small amount of electrical current is passed to the skin. The galvanometer records the minute electrical skin response. The third component consists of a cardiograph which is a tracing obtained by attaching a pneumatic cuff around the left arm in a manuer very similar to an apparatus which takes blood pressure. When the cuff is inflated that device records relative blood pressures or change in the heart rate. From those testing devices, it is possible to measure psychological or emotional stress. This testing device is the product of observation by psychologists and physiologists who noted certain physiological responses when people lie. In about 1920, law enforcement officials with psychological and pysiological training initiated the development of the instrument to serve as an investigative aid. The polygraph may record responses indicative of deception, but it must be carefully interpreted. The relevant questions, as to which the interrogator is seeking to determine whether the subject is falsifying, are compared with control questions where the examiner obtains a known indication of deception or some expected emotional response. In evaluating the polygraph, due consideration must be given to the fact that a physiological response may be caused by factors other than deception, such as fear, anxiety, nervousness, dislike, and other emo- tions. There are no valid statistics as to the reliability of the polygraph. FBI Agent Herndon testified that, notwithstanding the absence of percentage mdi- cators of reliability, an informed judgment may be obtained from a well-qualified examiner on the indications of deception in a normal person under appropriate standards of administration. Ordinarily during a polygraph examination only the examiner and the examinee are present. It is the practice of the FBI, however, to have a second agent present to take notes. It is normally undesirable to have other people present during the polygraph examination because the examinee may react emotionally to them. Because of the numerous interested parties involved in Ruby's polygraph examination, there were present individuals representing the Commission and the Dallas district attorney, as well as two defense counsel, two FBI agents, the chief jailer, the psychiatrist, and the court reporter, although the assistant district attorney and one defense counsel left when Ruby was actually responding to questions while the instrument was activated. Ruby was placed in a position where there was a minimum of distraction for him during the test. He faced a ~rall and could not see anyone except possibly through secondary vision from the ~ side. Agent Herndon expressed the opinion that Ruby was not affected by the presence of the people in the room. Answer by Ruby to certain irrelevant control questions suggested an attempt : to deceive on those questions. For example, Ruby answered "No" to the question ~ ; "While in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?" His reaction suggested deception in his answer. Similarly, Ruby's negative answer to the query "Did you ever overcharge a customer?" was suggestive of deception Ruby further showed an emotional response to other control questions such as "Have I 1 you ever been known by another name?" "Are you married?" "Have you ever served time in jail?" "Are your parents alive?" "Other than what you told me, did you ever hit anyone with any kind of a weapon?" Herndon concluded that PAGENO="0058" I 566 USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS LIE DETECTORS" the absence of any physiological response on the relevant questions indicated that there was no deception. An accurate evaluation of Ruby's polygraph examination depends on whether he was psychotic. Since a psychotic is divorced from reality, the polygraph tracings could not be logically interpreted on such an individual. A psychotic person might believe a false answer was true so he would not register an emotional response characteristic of deception as a normal person would. If a person is so mentally disturbed that he does not understand the nature of the questions or the substance of his answers, then no validity can be attached to the polygraph examination. Herndon stated that if a person, on the other hand, was in touch with reality, then the polygraph examination could be interpreted like any other such test. Based on his previous contacts with Ruby and from observing him during the entire polygraph proceeding, Dr. William R. Beavers testified as follows: "In the greater proportion of the time that he answered the questions, I felt that he was aware of the questions and that he understood them, and that he was giving answers based on an appreciation of reality." Dr. Beavers further stated that he had previously diagnosed Ruby as a "psy- chotic depressive." Based on the assumption that Ruby was a "psychotic depressive," Herndon testified: "There would be no validity to the ploygraph examination, and no significance should be placed upon the polygraph charts." Considering other phases of Dr. Beavers' testimony, Herndon stated: "Well, based on the hypothesis that Ruby was mentally competent and sound, the charts could be interpreted, and if those conditionsare fact, the charts could be interpreted to indicate that there was no area of deception present with regard to his response to the relevant questions during the polygraph examination." In stating his opinion that Ruby was in touch with reality and understood the questions and answers, Dr. Beavers excepted two questions where he concluded that Ruby's underlying delusional state took hold. Those questions related to the safety of Ruby's family and his defense counsel. While in the preliminary session Ruby had answered those questions by stating that he felt his family and defense counsel were in danger, he did not answer either question when the polygraph was activated. Dr. Beavers interpreted Ruby's failure to answer as a reflection of "internal struggle as to just what was reality." In addition, Dr. Beavers testified that the test was not injurious to Ruby's mental or physical condition. Because Ruby not only volunteered but insisted upon taking a polygraph examination, the Commission agreed to the examination. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover commented on the examination as follows: "It should be pointed out that the polygraph, often referred to as `lie detector' is not in fact such a device. The instrument is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses in the form of physiological variations which may indicate and accompany deception. The FBI feels that the polygraph technique is not sufficiently precise to permit absolute judgments of deception or truth without qualifications. The polygraph technique has a number of limitations, one of which relates to the mental fitness and condition of the examinee to be tested. "During the proceedings at Dallas, Tex., on July 18, 1964, Dr. William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist, testified that he would generally describe Jack Ruby as a `psychotic depressive.' In view of the serious question raised as to Ruby's mental condition, no significance should be placed on the polygraph examination and it should be considered nonconclusive as the charts cannot be relied upon." Having granted Ruby's request for the examination, the Commission is publish- ing the transcript of the hearing at which the test was conducted and the transcript of the deposition of the FBI polygraph operator who administered the test. The Commission did not rely on the results of this examination in reaching the con- clusions stated in this report. PAGENO="0059" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" EXHIBIT 37-REPLY FROM THE DEPAETMEN'~ OF JUSTICE: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., July 16, 1963. S. A. ANDRETTA, Administrative Assistant Attorney General. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Washington, D.C., July ~2, 1963. 1. Does your agency possess or make use of polygraphs or other so-called lie- detection devices? (If major subordinate organizations within your agency engage in such activity, please list all those organizations.) Yes. 2. Briefly explain your agency's general procedures governing the use of such devices and answer the following specific questions. (Please explain procedures and indicate if they are covered by regulation in connection with each question. If more than one major subordinate organization within the agency is affected, provide separate responses for each.) (a) For what specific purposes are these devices used? (i.e., employment interviews, security-clearance processing, suspected improper conduct of duties, or other purposes.) The FBI uses the polygraph as an investigative aid in carefully selected cases involving criminal and security violations in which the FBI has primary juris- diction. All persons interviewed with the polygraph sign voluntary waivers indicating their willingness to be interviewed with this device. The FBI does not use the polygraph in interviewing job applicants or general personnel screening. (b) Are the devices used in every instance involving those purposes listed in answer to question (a)? No; only selected cases. During fiscal year 1962 the FBI handled 637,090 investigative matters. Polygranh technique was utilized in 912 investigative matters. Therefore, use of the polygraph is 0. 14 percent of total investigative matters. (c) What weight is given the data resulting from tests by these devices, or refusals to take such tests, in relation to other types of investigative information? The FBI's official position with regard to polygraph results is that although the polygraph is often referred to as a `lie detector," it is not in fact such a device. The instrument is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses which may indicate and accompany deception. It must be clearly understood that emotional disturbances observed during a polygraph test can and may be prompted by anger, fear, violent dislike, et cetera. The polygraph operator must be extremely skilled, conservative, and objective. The FBI feels that the poiy- graph technique is not sufficiently precise to permit absolute judgments of guilt or nonguilt without qualifications. The polygraph is used as an investigative aid and the results must be considered within the context of a complete investigation. The polygraph can be helpful to implement an interrogation and provide investiga- tive direction but it must not be relied on solely or used as a substitute for logical investigation. (d) Who makes the initial determination to use such devices, and is this initial determination subject to review by higher authority in each case? Requests to use the polygraph originate from the special agent in charge of the field division where the subject resides. These cases are reviewed and passed on by the assistant director level at the seat of government and reviewed at assistant to director level. 567 I Hon. JOHN E. Moss, Chairman, Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to your letter of June 11, 1963, addressed to the Attorney General, requesting hiformation on the use of polygraph equipment in the Department of Justice. This is to advise you that the only branch of the Department which owns or uses polygraph machines is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director of that Bureau has advised me that he has been in communication with your Subcommittee and has furnished information concerning the FBI's use of the polygraph. Sincerely, PAGENO="0060" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" (e) Is the physical and mental condition of each person to be tested considered to determine suitability to take such a test? Yes. (f) What disposition is made of data derived from such tests given to persons connected with your agency (i.e., retained in affected individual's personnel files, retained separately, etc.)? As pointed out above, the polygraph is not used for personnel screening. (~1) Are the findings of such tests made available to the individuals who take the tests? During the course of a polygraph examination, the examiner may inform the testee that he appears to be deceiving with regard to a question or questions to allow follow-up interrogation. However, the person is not iuformed of the final opinions or results of the examination. (h) Is there a right of appeal in cases of adverse findings? The FBI does not use the polygraph for personnel screening and in this context the right of appeal is not applicable. However, in our usage of polygraph, if a person requests a reexamination, it would be given if a logical reason existed. (i) IS access to such data restricted and, if so, what classification or other designation is applied to the data? Polygraph data is maintained in substantive investigative case files and, there- fore, is of a confidential character under departmental order 260-62 dated January 19, 1962 (previously DO 3229). (j) If a person connected with your agency refuses to take such a test, is that refusal reflected in any way whatsoever in the individual's personnel records? As indicated above the polygraph is not used for applicant and general personnel screening. (k) Does you agency maintain special facilities, such as specially designed rooms, for the performance of such tests? Briefly describe such facilities and how they are equipped. Furnish photographs, if available. No. (1) I-low many polygraph tests or examinations involving similar devices were conducted by your agency in fiscal year 1963? During fiscal year 1963, the Bureau utilized the polygraph technique in 1,030 investigative matters and examined 2,314 individuals (June 1963 estimated). (m) How many such tests were conducted by other agencies, public or private, at the request of your agency during fiscal 1963? None. 3. Please enumerate, by job title and grade, all employees of your agency who are authorized to conduct polygraph or similar tests and list their salary costs for fiscal 1963. In addition, please answer the following: During fiscal year 1963 the Federal Bureau of Investigation had 46 trained polygraph operators, but only 40 actually conducted polygraph examinations. Only a portion of the time of the 40 who actually conducted polygraph examina- tions was spent on this work, at an estimated cost of $37,000, or 6 percent of the total annual salary cost of the 46 trained operators. (a) How many of these persons have, as their primary duty, the conducting of such tests? None. (b) What are the minimum qualifications required of those persons within your agency authorized to conduct such tests? (1) Age: No minimum age for polygraph examiners has been set; however, all examiners must be special agents. Minimum age for special agents is 23 years. In actuality the minimum age of agents trained has been 30 years. (2) Education: All special agent examiners have a minimum of a 4-year resident college degree and many have advanced degrees. (3) Grade or rank : Special agent. (4) Years of investigative experience : No minimum years of investigative experience has been set ; however, in actuality the minimum experience has been 5 years. Most examiners had at least 10 years investigative cx- perience prior to polygraph training. (5) Agency check or character investigation required: Yes. (6) Type of special polygraph training: Internal training course and advanced training seminars. (7) Other requirements: t~ 1 cani be recommended by th~ onstrated excellent intei )gation ab qualifications have been furnished our f 568 I PAGENO="0061" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS LIE DETECTORS" 569 polygraph training : Broad investigative experience with demonstrated ability for thorough interrogation; marked prcfficieney in planning and con- ducting interviews with particular reference to alertness and facility in thought; academic training in psychology, physiology, law, social sciences or previous training and experience with the polygraph; ability to gain confidence of others and handle people under difficult circumstances with such personal characteristics as maturity, stability of temperament, good judgment, and initiative; genuine interest in receiving training and developing skill in scientific interrogation techniques ; other considerations such as fluency in speaking a foreign language. (c) Describe any training program your agency provides to train its own employees, or employees of other Federal agencies, in conducting such tests. The initial training is given by own agency and lasts approximately 2 weeks following which the examiners undergo on-the-job training for approximately I year under close supervision of the seat of government during which time each of their examinations is reveiwed by a qualified supervisor. The polygraph serves as a supplemental tool to assist the already high interrogation skill of our cx- aminers. (d) Does your agency send employees to outside agencies or schools, public or private, for training in such testing? If so, please provide the name and ad- dress of the training fttcility. No. 4. How many polygraphs and other so-called lie detection divices are the property of your agency The FBI presently has 48 polygraph instruments, 8 of which represent experi- mental, research, and training equipment. (a) Please list the total acquisition cost of all such devices. Total acquisition cost of all instruments is approximately $38,426.50. . (b) Please estimate the total annual maintenance costs of such devices and indicate whether maintenance is performed by agency personnel or by outside sources. Estimated annual maintenance cost: $125. Maintenence performed by own personnel. (c) If your agency leases such devices, or contracts with other public or private agencies to perform such tests, please provide the total costs for such activity during fiscal 1963. The FBI does not lease polygraphs or contract with other public or private agencies to perform such tests. (d) Please estimate all additional ~xpenses attributable to such testing, such . as travel expenses for examiners to and from location of tests, internal and external training programs, and all other costs. For the selected agents this training is part of regular agent refresher courses. Since their polygraph assignments are incidental to their other duties as special agents, no cost breakdowiss is maintained._ 5. Please provide two copies each of all intraagency directives, administrative orders, rules, regulations, and/or instructions governing the use of such devices within your agency. Set forth below, which for the most part has been furnished in our reply to the above questions, is a summary of instructions governing use of the polygraph within the FBI. Lie detectors are instruments for recording physiological changes such as blood pressure, pulse, respiratory, and electrodermal responses. Conclusions frOm polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence ; statements made while polygraph utilized are admissible evidence. Polygraphs and agents trained as examiners are located in key offices. Polygraph used in selected cases consistent with investigative requirements. Headquarters must authorize polygraph use in every instance. All persons interviewed with polygraph must give voluntary written consent. FBI will not authorize polygraph use by outside agency in Bureau case or make available Bureau polygraph to outside agency. PAGENO="0062" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" EXHIBIT 38-SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, MARCH 27, 1964 The following supplemental information to our completed questionnaire dated July 22, 1963, on FBI use of a polygraph is set out: 1 . Formal regulations governing use.-The FBI does have rigid written regula- tions governing use of a polygraph as previously set out in completed questionnaire dated July 22, 1963. 2. Test results subject to appeal.-The FBI does not use the polygraph for personnel screening and in this context the right of appeal is not applicable. However, in our usage of polygraph, if a person requests a reexamination, it would be given if a logical reason existed. 3. Results available to testee.-During the course of a polygraph examination, the examiner may inform the testee that he appears to be deceiving with regard to a question or questions to allow follow-up interrogation. However, the person is not informed of the final opinions or results of the examination. 4. Minimum qualifications for polygraph operators: (a) Age.-As previously advised, the actual minimum age of an agent trained as a polygraph examiner has been 30. The majority of our examiners were between 35 and 45 when trained and we only consider mature and experienced agents. (b) Years of investigative experience.-As previously advised, the actual minimum experience of our examiners has been 5 years and most had at least 10 years investigative experience prior to polygraph training. (c) Other requirements.-In explanation of the broad requirements listed in our supplemental questionnaire dated January 13, 1964, the following written quali- fications have been furnished our field offices when selecting agents for polygraph training: (1) Broad investigative experience with demonstrated ability for thorough interrogation. (2) Marked proficiency in planning and conducting interviews with par- ticular reference to alertness and facility in thought. (3) Academic training in psychology, physiology, law, social sciences, or previous training and experience with the polygraph. (4) Ability to gain confidence of others and handle people under difficult circumstances with such personal characteristics as maturity, stability of temperament, good judgment, and initiative. (5) Genuine interest in receiving training and developing skill in scientific interrogation techniques. (6) Other considerations such as fluency in speaking a foreign language. EXHIBIT 39-LETTER FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, TO HON. JOHN E. Moss, APRIL 21, 1964 WASHINGTON, D.C., April f~1, 1964. Hon. JOHN E. Moss, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR CONGRESSMAN : Your letter of April 15, 1964, requesting a list of studies since 1950 involving the polygraph made by the FBI or individuals or organizations under contract to the FBI has been received. This is to advise that the FBI has not conducted any such study involving the polygraph. Additionally, in response to your inquiry, there has not been any such study or report prepared by an outside individual or organization as a con- sultant under contract to the FBI. Sincerely yours, 570 J. EDGAR HoovER. PAGENO="0063" EXHIBIT 40-LETTBR FE0M U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, TO HON. JOHN E. Moss, MAY 24, 196ô WASHINGTON, D.C., May 24, 1965. Hon. JOHN B. Moss, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN : This letter is to confirm the telephonic conversation between Mr. John P. Mohr, assistant to the Director, and Mr. Benny Kass, general counsel of your subcommittee, on May 21, 1965. With regard to your interest in securing testimony in the Edward Grady Partin matter involving James R. Hoffa, the Attorney General has advised that it will not be possible to furnish such testimony in view of the fact an appeal is pending in this matter. So far as the Jack L. Ruby polygraph examination is concerned, material dealing with this is contained in the Warren Commission report. In addition, the Attorney General believes it appropriate for your subcommittee to contact the Texas prosecuting authorities prior to testimony inasmuch as the Ruby case is being appealed in the Texas State courts. Sincerely yours, J. EDGAR HOOVER. EXHIBIT 41-LETTER FROM BENNY L. KAss, SUBCOMMITTEE COUNSEL, TO HENRY WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DALLAS, TEX. FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE, T4~ashington, D.C., May 22, 1965. Mr. HENRY WADE, District Attorney, Records Building, Dallas, Tex. DEAR MR. WADE: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of Friday evening, May 21, 1965, where you stated you had no objection to the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee exploring certain aspects of the FBI's polygraph test given to Mr. Jack Ruby. Hearings with the FBI will begin on May 25, 1965, and I will send you a transcript just as soon as they are available. As I mentioned on the telephone, the FBI's polygraph test of Mr. Ruby was extensively reported in both the hearings and the report of the President's Com- mission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. They can be found in vol. XIV (hearings), pages 504-598, and in appendix XVII of the final report. Sincerely yours, EXHIBIT 42-EXCERPT FROM FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION MANUAL PART II 2. Interviews with witnesses, suspects, and subjects; confessions and signed statements. A. Policy and instructions (interviews of subjects, suspects, and witnesses must be handled in a businesslike manner, carefully prepared, and thoughtfully planned. It is imperative that all pertinent information be obtained in a mini- mum of time. Every effort should be made to avoid recontacts unless good judgment, common sense, and sound investigation make them necessary): 1 . Interviews with persons under arrest must be in a manner that will not unnecessarily delay their appearance before a U.S. Commissioner. 2. Constitutional safeguards must be borne in mind at all times. At the beginning of an interview with a subject, suspect, or an arrested person, such person must be promptly informed that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement can be used against him in court. The identity of the interviewing Agents must be known by such persons. Care must be taken to see that no duress is exercised ; that no threats are made; that the suspect or subject is not promised immunity from prosecution or amelioration of punishment. Involuntary statements, confessions, or ad- missions of guilt are not admissible in evidence. USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 571 BENNY L. KAss, Counsel. PAGENO="0064" I. II. TJSE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 3. At the beginning of an interview with a person under arrest, he should be promptly informed of the right of counsel before making a statement. At the beginning of an interview with a suspect for whom arrest is contem- plated on conclusion of the interview, he should be promptly informed of the right of counsel before making a statement. 4. When an individual in custody of local authorities is interviewed regarding a possible Federal violation, he should be informed at the beginning of the interview of the right of counsel before making a statement. Agents are not responsible for either the appointment or employment of an attorney for Bureau subjects. 5. [To obtain a valid waiver of counsel, any arrested subject interviewed for a confession or admission of his own guilt must be warned of his right to counsel which includes his right to have counsel appointed if he is indigent. Advice of free counsel shall not be given to persons not under arrest.] EXHIBIT 43-FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TRAINING FOR POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS CURRICULUM SUMMARY, POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS' TRAINING SCHOOL Two-weeks' intensive training: 1. Policy. 2. History and background of polygraph. 3. Nomenclature and functions of polygraph. 4. Polygraph test technique. 5. Physiological basis of the polygraph method of detection of deception. 6. Psychological factors affecting polygraph use. 7. Drugs and their effects on polygraph use. 8. Legal aspects. 9. Practical case exercises and actual case participation. One year on-the-job training: 1 . Actual case participation under expert supervision and review. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adatto, C. P., "Narcoanalysis as a Diagnostic Aid in Criminal Cases," Journal of Clinical Psychopathy, 1947, 8, 721-725. 2. Ansley, Norman and Weir, Raymond J., Jr., "Selected Papers on the Poly- graph," The Board of Polygraph Examiners, 1956, Washington, D.C. 3. Anslinger and Tompkins, "The Traffic in Narcotics," Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1953. 4. Ax, Albert F., "Psychophysiology of Fear and Anger," Psychiatric Research Report 12, American Psychiatric Association, January 1960 (a), 167-175. 5. Best and Taylor, "The Living Body," Hei~ry Holt & Co., 1952. 6. Beigel, H. G., "Prevarication Under Hypnosis," Journal of Clinical Experi- mental Hypnosis, 1953, 1 (3), 32-40. 7. Biderman, Albert D. and Zimmer, Herbert (eds.), "The Manipulation of Human Behavior," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961. 8. Brenman, Margaret and Gill, M. M., "Hypnotherapy," New York: Inter- national Universities Press, 1947. 9. Burach, B. A., "A Critical Analysis of the Theory, Method, and Limitations of the Lie Detector," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1955, 46, 414-426. 10. Davidson, H. A., "Appraisal of the Witness," American Journal of Psychi- atry, 1953, 110, 481-486. 11. Dc River, J. P., "Crime and the Sexual Psychopath," Charles C. Thomas, 1958. 12. Dession, G. H., Freedman, L. Z., Donnelly, R. C., & Redlich F. C., "Drug- induced Revelation and Criminal Investigation," Yale Law Journal, 1953, 62, 315-344. 13. Drzuzga, J., "Sex Crimes," Charles C. Thomas, 1960. 14. Ellson, Douglas G., "A Report of Research on Detection of Deception," Indiana University, Contract No. 6 Nonr-18011 with the Office of Naval Research, September 15, 1952. 15. Flock, Maurine, "Limitations of the Lie Detector," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1950, 40, 651-653. 572 PAGENO="0065" TfSi~ OF POLY~APHS AS "LIe DEPECPOItS" 573 1& Gerson, M. J. & Vietoroff, V. M., "Experimental Investigation into Validity of Confessions Obtained Under Sodium Amytal Narcosis," Journal of Clinical Psychopathy, 1948, 9, 359-275. 17. loch, P., Kubi~, J. F. & Rourke, F. L., "Psychogalvanic Investigations in Psychoses and Other Abnormal Mental States," Psychosomatic Medicine Journal, 1944, 6, 237-243. 18. Horsley, J. S., "Narco-Analysis," New York: Oxford University Press, 1943. 19. House, R. E., "The Use of Scopolamine in Criminology," Texas State Journal of Medicine, 1922, 18, 256-263. 20. Inbau, Fred and Reid, John E., "Lie Detection and Criminal Interrogation," 3d ed., Williams & Wilkens Co., Baltimore, 1953. 21. Karpman, B. "Lying," Psychiatric Quarterly, 1949, 23, 1-25. 22. Kubis, Joseph F., "Analysis of Polygraphic Data," RADC-TDR-64-1O1, January 1965. 23. Kubis, J. F., "Lie Detection: Recent Developments and Persistent Prob.~ lems," Trans. New York Academy of Science, 1953, 16, 34-38. 24. Kubis, Joseph F. "Studies in Lie Detection: Computer Feasibility Consid- erations," RADC-TR 62-205, June 1962. 25. Larson, J. A., "Lying and Its Detection," 1932, University of Chicago Press. 26. Lee, Clarence D., "The Instrumental Detection of Deception," 1953, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill. 27~ Leonard, V. A. (ed.), "Academy Lectures on Lie Detection," 1957, 1, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill. 28. Leonard, V. A. (ed.), "Academy Lectures on Lie Detection," 1958, 2 Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill. 29. MacDonald, J. M., "Truth Serum," Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi- nology, 1955, 46, 259-263. 30. Morgan, J. Band Lovell, "Psychology of Abnormal People," Longmans Green & Co., 1949. 31. Morgan and Stellar, "Physiological Psychology," McGraw-Hill Book Co.; 1950. 32. Sadler, W. S., "Practice of Psychiatry," C. V. Mosby Co., 1953. 33. Sternbanh, Ri chard A., Gustafson, Lawrence A. and Colier, Ronald L., "Don't Trust the Lie Detector," Harvard Business Review, vol. 40, November- December, 1962. 34. Summers, Walter G., "Science Can Get the Confession," Fordham Law Review, 1939, 8, 334-354. 35. Trovillo, Paul V~ "A History of Lie Detection," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1939, 29, 848-881; 1939, 30, 104-119. 36. Trovillo, Paul V. "Scientific Proof of Credibility," Tennessee Law Review, 1951-53, 22, 743-766. 37. Wicker, W., Cureton, B. E., and Trovillo, P. V., "The Polygraphic Truth Test: A Symposium," Tennessee Law Review, 22; 1-64. ~ 38. Dudycha, George J., "Psychology for Law Enforcement Officers," Thomas, 2d edition, 1960. 39. Arther and Caputo, "Interrogation for Investigators," Copp, 1959. 40. Inbau, Fred B. and Reid, John B., "Criminal Interrogation and Confes- sions," Williams & Wilkens Co., Baltimore, recent edition. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION POLYGRAPH ADVANCED TRAINING 5E~INARS In order to supplement the basic academic and the one-year, on-the-job train- ing and to keep the polygraph examiners abreast of all current developments in this field, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducts occasional advanced train- ing seminars, as needed, on a regional basis. The seminar consists of calling in regional polygraph examiners for a full two-day training session. These conferences are each made up of a small group of experienced polygraph examiners and are conducted as a round-table panel discussion under the immedi- ate guidance of an experienced Supervisor. The basic objective is to provide an interchange of ideas among the examiners, based on their actual experiences. Accordingly, no specific curriculum is provided. In general, however, the follow- ing items are covered: 1. Review of policy matters 2. Refresher on abnormal psychology and physiology 3. Dis~uesion and demonstration of new equipment 4. Panel discussion of cases, including new ideas and techniques involving polygraph interrogation PAGENO="0066" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" EXHIBIT 44-SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ON USE OF POLYGRAPH BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Washington, D.C., May 17, 1965. Hon. JOHN E. MOSS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have received your letter of May 6 regarding your subcommittee's continuing study into the use of the polygraph by Federal agencies. In accordance with your request, attached is the supplemental data you need to complete your study. In order to facilitate reading, all 17 questions have been repeated and are followed by our specific answer to each. I trust this information will assist your subcommittee. Sincerely yours, J. EDGAR HOOVER. QUESTIONNAIRE ON USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS LIE DETECTORS 1 . For what specific purposes does your agency use poiygraphs as lie detectors? The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uses the polygraph as an investi- gative aid in carefully selected cases involving serious criminal and security violations in which the FBI has primary jurisdiction. The FBI does not use the polygraph in interviewing job applicants or for general personnel screening. 2. How many so-called lie detection tests using polygraphs or similar devices were conducted by your agency in fiscal 1964 for each of the specific purposes listed in answer to question No. 1? A total of 1,155 polygraph examinations were conducted by the FBI in 593 cases during fiscal 1964. Considering the total investigative matters handled by the FBI in fiscal 1964 (666,982), the polygraph technique was used in only 0.09 percent (less than one-tenth of 1 percent) of the total investigations. 3. How many such tests were conducted by other agencies, public or private, at the request of your agency in fiscal 1964? Identify the other agencies, state the number of tests performed by each agency, and state the costs, if any. No polygraph tests have ever been conducted by other agencies, public or private, at the request of the FBI. 4. At what location (city and State if domestic, city and country, if foreign) was each of the tests listed in answer to questions 2 and 3 given? Specific data regarding the city and State where each of the 1,155 polygraph examinations conducted in fiscal 1964 were given is not readily available; how- ever, the 1,155 examinations were given in various communities in most if not all of the 50 States of the United States. 5. How many polygraphs or other so-called lie detection devices are the property of your agency? The FBI presently has 48 polygraph instruments, 9 of which represent cx- perimental, research, and training equipment. (a) How many of these devices were purchased during fiscal 1964? No polygraph instniments were purchased during fiscal 1964. (b) How many of these devices were purchased as replacements? Not applicable. (c) What was the acquisition cost of the devices purchased during fiscal 1964? Not applicable. (d) Identify by brand and model the devices purchased during fiscal 1964. Not applicable. 6. How many polygraphs or other so-called lie detection devices were leased during fiscal 1964? At what cost? No polygraphs or other devices were leased during fiscal 1964. 7. How many employees of your agency are authorized to conduèt examina- tions using polygraphs or similar lie detection devices? What were the total salary costs for these employees during fiscal 1964? A total of 44 special agent employees are authorized to conduct polygraph examinations. However, eight of these employees are currently assigned to supervisory positions and do not actively conduct examinations, Therefore, the FBI presently has 36 special agents who conduct polygraph examinations incidental to their regular investigative duties. Only a small portion of these agents' time is spent on polygraph work. Based on the previously reported study for fiscal 1963, in which 6 percent of the total salary cost or $37,000 was 574 PAGENO="0067" I USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS "LIE DETECTORS" 575 spent on polygraph work, for fiscal 1964 it is estimated that 3 percent of the total salary cost or $18,500 was spent on polygraph assignments. 8. Estimate all other expenses attributable to the use of polygraphs as lie detectors during fiscal 1964, including maintenance of the devices, travel expenses for examiners and training programs. During fiscal 1964 it is estimated that maintenance expense was less than $100. There were no expenses attributable to polygraph training programs during fiscal 1964. Since polygraph assignments are incidental to their other duties as special agents, no travel cost breakdown is maintained specifically regarding the very small amount of polygraph work. 9. What are the minimum qualifications for employees of your agency au- thorized to conduct examinations using polygraphs or similar lie detection devices? State specifically the minimum requirements of: (a) Age. The actual minimum age when trained has been 30 years; most trainees were over 35. (b) Education. All special agent examiners have a minimum of a 4-year resident college degree and many have advanced degress. (c) Grade or rank. Special agent. (d) Years of investigative experience. Actual minimum experience has been 5 years; most had over 10 years. (e) Length of specialized training. The specialized polygraph training lasts for 1 full year and is supplemented by advanced training seminars. In addition to above, all candidates for polygraph training have to be recom- mended by their field special agent in charge and must have demonstrated excel- lent interrogation ability. The following written qualifications have been furnished our field offices when selecting agents for polygraph training: Broad investigative experience with demonstratee ability for thorough interrogation; marked proficiency in planning and conducting interviews with particular reference to alertness and facility in thought; academic training in psychology, physiology, law, social sciences or previous training and experience with the polygraph; ability to gain confidence of others and handle people under difficult circumstances with such personal charac- teristics as ~ maturity, stability of temperament, good judgment, and initiative; genuine interest in receiving training and developing skill in scientific interroga- tion techniques ; other considerations such as fluency in speaking a foreign lan- guage. 10. Describe, in general, any polygraph training program your agency conducts for employees of your agency; include length of academic training and on-the-job experience required as part of the training program. The FBI trains its own polygraph examiners. The initial phase is a 2-week academic curriculum followed by a full year on-the-job training program. The polygraph technique serves as a supplemental tool to assist the already high interrogation skill of our experienced special agent trainees. All FBI polygraph examinations are subject to review by a supervisory staff in the FBI Laboratory. 1 1. Identify all other polygraph training facilities, either Government or private, used for employees of your agency and State: The FBI does not use any other polygraph training facilities, either govern- ment or private. (a) The number of employees who attended such training facilities during fiscal 1964. Not applicable. (b) The cost per employee exclusive of per diem. Not applicable. 12. What weight is given the data resulting from tests by polygraphs or simijar lie detection devices in relation to other types of investigative information? As previously reported the FBI's official position with regard to polygraph results is that althdugh the polygraph is often referred to as a lie detector, it is not in fact such a device. The instrument is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses which may indicate and accompany deception. It must be clearly understood that emotional disturbances observed during a poly- graph test can and may be prompted by factors other than deception. The polygraph operator must be extremely skilled, conservative, and objective. The ~ j FBI feels that the polygraph technique is not sufficiently precise to permit PAGENO="0068" USE OF POLYGRAPHS AS `LIE DETECTORS" absolute judgments of guilt or nonguilt without qualifications. The polygraph is used as an investigative aid and the results must be considered within the context of a complete investigation. The polygraph can be helpful to implement an interrogation and provide investigative direction but it must not be relied on solely or used as a substitute for logical investigation. (a) Who makes the initial determination to use such devices? Initial determination to use the polygraph is made by the special agent in charge of the field division where the subject resides. (b) Is this initial determination subject to review by higher authority in each case? The lnitial determination is subject to review and must be approved by higher authority. (c) At what specific administrative level is the review made? All cases are reviewed and passed on by the Assistant Director level, Assistant to the Director, and final approval must be given by at least the Associate Director. In some cases, the Director will make the final review. 13. If a person connected with your agency refuses to take a polygraph or other lie detection test, is information about the refusal made available to any person or agency outside your agency? Does your agency have any written rules or regulations governing this procedure? If so, provide two copies. Not applicable as the FBI does not use the polygraph for general personnel screening. 14. Does your agency use two-way mirrors to permit observation of a poiy- graph or similar lie detection test or use recording devices during such a test? -The FBI does not use two-way mirrors to permit observation of a polygraph test or use recording devices during such a test. (a) If so, in either case, are the individuals taking the tests informed of the existence of the two-wa~r mirrors or recording devices? Not applicable. (b) Does your agency have any regulations governing the use of the two-way mirrors or recording devices during interrogations? If so, provide two copies. Not applicable. 15. Has your agency during fiscal 1964 undertaken or contracted for any re- search projects involving the use of the polygraph or other so-called lie detection devices? No, the FBI has not undertaken or contracted for any research projects in- volving the use of the polygraph. (a) If so, please identify the research project and the researcher (or university). Not applicable. (b) Please state the total costs incurred for each of these research projects. Not applicable. 16. Has your agency ever been involved in any legal or administrative matter involving the use of the polygraph or any other so-called lie detection device? (This question is intended to elicit any reference, regardless of degree of use, to the polygraph in these judicial or administrative proceedings.) No. (a) If your agency. holds administrative hearings, are any references to poly- graph examinations admitted in evidence? Not. applicable. (l~) If the answer to question 16(a) is in the affirmative, is the polygraph oper- ator made available for examination and cross-examination purposes? Not applicable. (c) Are polygraph charts and other related documents admitted in evidence in these administrative hearings? Not applicable. 17. If your agency has issued any new regulations or directives pertaining to the use of polygraphs and other so-called lie detection devices since your answer to the subcommittee questionnaire dated June 11, 1963 (or if your agency has amended any existing regulations or directives), provide two copies of each. The FBI has not issued any new regulations or directives or amended regu- lations pertaining to use of the polygraph since answering the subcommittee questionnaire dated June 11, 1963. . I 576 PAGENO="0069" INDEX Page Attorney, right to have 526 Control question technique 521, 535, 536, 540-542, 544 Desensitized 537-538 Drugs, effect on polygraph subject 531, 532, 533 Eyewitness 533 Federal Bureau of Investigation: Number of polygraph tests given 51 4, 520 Minimum qualifications for polygraph operators 514-515 Organization chart 518 Use of polygraph 524 Waiver 526, 527 Training program 529, 530, 531, 544-545 Test given to Jack Ruby 537, 542 Invasion of privacy 546 "Lie detector," no such thing 516 Mental incompetency 518, 519 Normal pattern 534, 536 Pathological liar~ _ 522, 523 Peak of tension~ 542-543 Physiological response 521, 530, 531 , 532, 533-534, 540 Polygraph operator 516, 524 Polygraph tests: Decision to give 517, 544 Number given 514, 520 Just an interrogation 523 Refusal to take 527, 528 When given 543 Preemployment screening 544 Refusal to take exam 527, 528 Research 525 Ruby, Jack 535, 536, 537, 540 Smoking, effect on polygraph subject 532 Training program 529, 530, 531, 544-545 Truth 522 Waiver 526, 527 Warren Commission report 535, 536, 540 577 0 PAGENO="0070"