The purpose of a polygraph examination is to be able to interrogate people and illegally deny them numerous Constitutional protections including their right to speak with an attorney during questioning under the Sixth Amendment, due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply it is legal to deny United States citizens their rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution due to national security concerns.

The polygraph is utilized to trick subjects who have been accused of no crimes and are already extraordinarily well vetted into submitting to a police interrogation without the benefit of an attorney which may result in their arrest. If you do not understand why you should never talk to the police without an attorney even if you are innocent, you need to watch this video by Regent Law Professor James Duane.

Test subjects are also told they have the right to refuse the polygraph examination immediately before the exam, but that of course will result in the withdrawal of any offer of employment. In that respect polygraph exams offer no consideration to the applicant, and would not pass muster of having any contractual validity. If an agency offers a signing bonus to an applicant, but requires they do not leave the employ of the agency for a year, reciprocal consideration is given. If an agency says the applicant must stay in the employ of the agency for a year and will consider giving them a signing bonus, there is no reciprocity. Consideration of reciprocity is not reciprocity.

While the Johnson Memorandum permits agencies to use polygraphs, the subject must voluntarily consent in writing to the test. This consent is asked for immediately prior to the exam, and does not allow the examinee the opportunity to review with counsel. In fact, in the fine print of the paperwork they have individual sign, they notify them they have the right to consult with a lawyer prior to the exam, but the notification is untimely since the test subject is already in the testing facility when this notification is made. They further notify the test subject of their privilege against self incrimination in the examination room, again without the benefit of legal counsel. Of course there is no legal counsel during what the Department of Justice terms “the post-test interview” - which is an interrogation.

Significantly, test subjects are instructed by polygraphers not to do any research about polygraphs prior to their examination. Nor are they informed of the consequences of “failing” a polygraph examination. Failing is in quotes because you cannot fail a test which has no validity to begin with. Of course if the applicant follows the polygrapher’s pre-examination instructions completely against their self interests, they will never know this. The consequence of failing a polygraph examination is the applicant will have the failure recorded in two United States databases: Scattered Castles and the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) where it can be looked up and leveraged against them for any future employment opportunities with the government. This life changing determination will be made by someone with less training (~ 14 weeks) than the time it takes to graduate from Barbizon Cosmetology school.

One common lie told to examinees is their candor in the security clearance process will be rewarded because "nobody is perfect" and after all confession is good for the soul. In many cases the information the applicant must divulge as part of the security clearance process will be leveraged by the polygraph examiner to accuse them of crimes they did not commit. This puts the applicant in a very untenable position as they must be (and should be) truthful on their security clearance paperwork, but they should also expect that information to be used against them. Expect statements like "coming from a broken home it would be understandable if you experimented with drugs" or "given your father and half brother are both convicted felons, are you certain you have not committed any of [a list of crimes they are interested in] not reported on your paperwork? And don't expect them to ask just once. They will harp on it worse than an old lady at a fruit stand.

If you read the accounts of people who have undergone polygraph exams, certain lies are often told to examinees, and a modus operandi emerges which is not pleasant. The first is they failed a question or many questions on the exam. Sometimes this is worded to the effect of " we are not getting the responses expected on question such and such", leaving your mind to fill in what any idiot would know that means. Almost nobody simply passes a polygraph exam. They almost certainly will "fail" a question pertaining to the two most likely criminal activities they may have engaged in without being caught, drug use or serious crimes. Remember, the purpose of the polygraph is not to discern whether you are telling the truth or not. The purpose is to convince you to submit to something nobody in their right mind would do and no attorney would recommend, submitting to a police interrogation without an attorney. The allure of a position in law enforcement or national security is so tantalizing for some they will throw all caution to the wind and do something extraordinarily foolish which may put a black mark on their name for life.

If an examinee is told they failed a question, invariably the next lie told is if they simply proffer an acceptable reason for the conduct all will be forgiven for the disqualifying behavior, and they will move on to the next phase of the process (which may be a jail cell). One of the victims interviewed for this site had their examiner say, "well I can't send results up like this without some kind of explanation", with pleading puppy dog eyes saying "please just let me help you" in a performance worthy of an academy award. Unfortunately for her that applicant had nothing to give her. They had not committed any serious undetected crimes nor had they ever used drugs including never having smoked marijuana (which is not normal – almost everyone has tried marijuana). They may even suggest "acceptable" answers for your alleged conduct. In this applicant’s case it was "coming from a broken home it would be understandable if you used drugs as a younger person", and "given the criminal records of people in your family I could see how you might have engaged in some criminal activity when you were younger.”