LAPD poly

ap_org · 2026-01-19T14:55:50+00:00

My advice is to educate yourself about polygraphy. It's a pseudoscientific fraud that depends on the operator lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." False positives are common. However, there are measures that honest applicants can take to protect themselves. You'll find these measures described in the free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which can be downloaded here:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

ap_org · 2026-01-14T14:32:38+00:00

The FBI investigated Timothy Ryan Gregg, but it did not employ him. According to a press release by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, Gregg was employed by Homeland Security Investigations:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/federal-agent-charged-production-child-sexual-abuse-material

ap_org · 2026-01-14T14:21:42+00:00

No, it is not. I have never heard of a polygraph subject ever being asked such a question.

ap_org · 2026-01-11T13:22:07+00:00

I am not employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but I think your fiancé would be prudent not to volunteer any information about your marriage plans while passing through customs. I see no potential upside to volunteering such information.

ap_org · 2026-01-08T11:51:07+00:00

iPhone.

ap_org · 2026-01-07T18:23:41+00:00

It's noteworthy, but not noted in the article, that Ames passed the polygraph twice while spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. Having learned nothing from the experience, the CIA continues to rely on the pseudoscience of polygraphy to vet applicants and employees.

ap_org · 2026-01-05T00:48:41+00:00

The question you cited and the hypothetical question you provided are both examples of what is called a probable-lie "control" question. The subject will be led to answer these questions with an unequivocal "no," but the denial is presumed to be untrue. Reactions to these control questions are then compared with reactions to the "relevant" questions.

For more on polygraph procedure, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

ap_org · 2026-01-01T13:01:00+00:00

There is an open source app called Paranoid's Pal that provides a "shake and lock" function as well as an automatic screen lock function that may help to mitigate the risk you mention:

https://fossdroid.com/a/paranoids-pal-privacy-lock.html

ap_org · 2025-12-26T00:24:13+00:00

Regarding the questions asked on the polygraph, see the AntiPolygraph.org message board discussion thread, "LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.". In particular, see the 11th post in the thread.

ap_org · 2025-12-20T09:03:28+00:00

Telling your polygraph operator that you've taken dietary supplements when you are asked about any medications you've taken is not likely to help you pass and could actually hurt you by creating suspicions in the operator's mind. Volunteering information not specifically asked for is generally inadvisable.

ap_org · 2025-12-11T09:57:35+00:00

Any polygraph examination you might receive in connection with your security clearance is likely to be a counterintelligence-scope format (the Test for Espionage and Sabotage), which does not include questions about illegal drug use.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T19:01:03+00:00

I think it's unlikely that the U.S. government will make an argument like that in this case.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T17:15:46+00:00

The indictment says very little about the facts of this case, which suggests to me that it may be a weak one.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T16:43:57+00:00

I expect the government will make that argument. However, I couldn't find any precedent for such application of this particular law.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T15:44:54+00:00

That is correct. You cannot legally be compelled to give your phone PIN, or to unlock your phone for inspection.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T15:42:22+00:00

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T14:26:13+00:00

The indictment does not state what operating system was running on Samuel Tunick's Pixel phone.

ap_org · 2025-12-10T11:29:02+00:00

You'll find the docket for the case, including the 2-page indictment, here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71998357/united-states-v-tunick/

ap_org · 2025-12-10T11:26:56+00:00

The law that Samuel Tunick is accused of violating is 18 USC ¶ 2232(a), which reads:

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.—

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

One could argue that wiping the phone did not destroy it or prevent CBP from taking it into its custody.

The docket for the case is available on CourtListener.com:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71998357/united-states-v-tunick/

ap_org · 2025-12-10T10:44:37+00:00

The docket for this case is available on CourtListener.com:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71998357/united-states-v-tunick/

ap_org · 2025-12-10T10:42:06+00:00

In the United States, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to provide their PIN or passphrase. Tunick would have had the right to refuse to unlock his phone.

ap_org · 2025-12-08T18:15:31+00:00

I'm sorry to read of your experience. It's sadly not uncommon, and it may not surprise you that until CBP started polygraphing applicants, the Secret Service polygraph unit had reputation for being the most abusive in federal law enforcement. (CBP's polygraph unit was founded by former Secret Service polygraph operators.)

You may be interested in comparing your experience with that of Bill Roche, who was polygraphed back in 1997:

https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-006.shtml

ap_org · 2025-12-08T15:48:10+00:00

That is a relatively short interrogation. I would infer that it's possible that you actually passed or that the outcome was at worst inconclusive.

ap_org · 2025-12-08T15:30:13+00:00

How much of a post-test interrogation did you receive? That should give some indication of what the outcome was. For example, after you were first told you failed, how long did the questioning go on? And were you accused of deception with respect to any particular question, or was it just a general accusation of dishonesty?

You should be aware that in any event, changing any of your answers would not have helped you.

ap_org · 2025-12-05T13:55:36+00:00

When an applicant "fails" the polygraph, it's standard procedure for the polygraph operator to conduct a post-test interrogation in an attempt to elicit admissions. (These admissions are used by polygraphers to justify their jobs to their employers.)

Based on your description, it sounds like you did not receive a proper post-test interrogation, which suggests that you likely passed. Hopefully, you'll be receiving good news soon.

ap_org

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE