The Attorney General of Texas
December 20, 1979
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Mr. William W. Fisher, Chairman~ Opinion No. MW-108
State Board of Polygraph Examiners
Ill West Laurel -Suite 115 Re: Voluntary participation of
San Antonio, Texas 78212 polygraph examinees.
Dear Mr. Fisher:
The Board of Polygraph Examiners has asked whether section 19(Z) of
the Polygraph Examiners Act, article 4413(29cc), V.T.C.S., prohibits a
polygraph examiner from proceeding with an examination of a subject when
the examinee indicates that his participation in the process is not voluntary.
The statutory provision rear%
sec. 19. The board may refuse to issue or may
suspendor revoke a license on any one or more of the
following groundw
(1) for failing to inform a subject to be
examined as to the nature of the examination;
(2) for failing to inform a subject to be
examined that his participation in the examina-
tion is voluntary;
. ...
(l2) [or] failing to inform the subject of the
results of the examination if so requested
It is obvious from a reading of this provision that the board is not
required to revoke or suspend the license of any licensed examiner simply
because he fails in one or more instances to take the ,foregoing steps,
although it might do so. The statute merely establishes standards which the
board may use to determine the fitness of licensees.
The statute ,imposes upon polygraph examiners a standard duty to
inform the subjects of examinations about certain matters, but it does not
impose upon them any duty to determine the motives of the examinee in
thereafter consenting to the examination or refusing it. If the consent given
P- 341
r -
Mr. William W. Fisher - Page Two (MW-108)
is truly informed consent, the examiner may take it at face value, for the purpose of
“informing” examinees is to apprise them of their right to make a choice - not to dictate
a chdce or determine the motives behind it.
Even if the cocperation of a polygraph examinee has been coerced by a third party,
the examiner performs his duty so long as he clearly and in good faith informs the subject
that he need not undergo the examination, and that the examiner will not administer the
test if the subject chooses to cancel it.
The examiner is not responsible for any coercive activity in which he does not
conspire or participate. If the prospective examinee refuses to be examined, the
polygraph examiner should abandon any attempt to examine him. If he has properly
informed the subject of his right to refuse the examination, and the subject nevertheless
choosss to go forward with it, the examiner is not at fault if it should later appear that
the subject’s chdce resulted from third-party coercion.
SUMMARY
Section 19(Z) of the Polygraph Examiners Act, article 44l2(29cc),
V.T.C.S., establishes a standard which the Board of Polygraph
Examiners may use to determine the fitness of licensee& It
raquires that the examiner properly inform a subject that .his
participation in a polygraph examination is voluntary, but the
examiner need not determine the motives of a consenting
examinec
‘~g;g
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Bruce Youngblood
Assistant Attorney General-
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
P. 342
Mr. William W. Fisher - Page Three (MW-108)
David B. Brooks
Bob Gammage
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpm
Bruce Youngblood
D. 34-4