Full Spectrum Litigator

This page discusses the FBI pre-employment polygraph, which is given to Special Agent and support applicants.

The FBI polygraph is a variant of the Department of Defense Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET). The specific technique used is the Probable Lie Comparison Test (PLC), in which the examinee is asked question on which he is expected to lie, in order to compare his reaction to his reaction to relevant questions. For a more comprehensive and detailed discussion of the LEPET, please refer to the LEPET briefing booklet.

The FBI polygraph is intended to give the FBI important information about you for use throughout the hiring process. First, it is an assessment of your honesty, because you have to answer every question truthfully. In addition to automated scoring software, a polygraph specialist Supervisory Special Agent at headquarters will carefully study your charts. If any deception is indicated, you fail. If no deception is indicated, you pass.

Second, the polygraph examination helps determine your suitability by ensuring that you have disclosed all drug-related and crime-related information. Third, the examination ensures that you have provided truthful information elsewhere in your application process. Fourth, the examination establishes your loyalty to the United States. Unless otherwise stated, the examination covers only the period of your life since you turned 18 years old.

My exam was conducted in early June 2009 at the Oakland Resident Agency.

Not all polygraph suites have the same layout, as confirmed by other applicants. My polygraph was conducted in a suite that was laid out as follows:

When the examiner and I walked into the room, he instructed me to sit in the chair at the top left of the diagram. He carefully positioned me in the chair so that I was directly facing him. At this point I noticed a large area of one way glass on the opposite wall. The examiner started talking to me about basic information to build rapport, as outlined in the DOD LEPET briefing booklet. Then he hit me with a surprise; "for every twelve hundred applicants, only one gets to sit where you're sitting now." My jaw dropped. Then I was confused; I calculated in my head the number of Special Agent applicants and concluded this was not possible. I later learned that my exam was mistakenly scheduled as a "support" applicant rather than as a Special Agent applicant. For support applicants, his figures would still not make sense despite the hiring "surge" that year.

The pre-test interview continued in accordance with the LEPET manual. My favorite part was, "on a scale of one to ten, how do you rate your honesty?" I said nine. He then asked, "what level of honesty do you think the FBI should require?" I said nine. He said that some people give themselves a lower value of honesty than they believe the FBI should hire. I laughed and said "why would anyone do that?" He just smiled. These questions were used to establish my baseline levels for different emotional responses. The funny thing was, the examiner wasn't looking at me that carefully as he asked me these introductory questions. Based on this and the presence of one-way glass, I conclude that an observer was watching me carefully and that polygraph examiners and their assistants are trained to read subtle expressions and/or microexpressions, not just body language like the rest of the FBI. For example, a psychopath liar may carefully watch the person he is lying to to see whether they notice the lie. Or, when lying, a psychopath may show "duping delight" because he enjoys deceiving others. I learned this in a specialized training course that I took in detecting deception. Anyway, I conclude someone was watching for these signs during the pre-test interview.

The interview continued with what the examiner described as the "Robert Hanssen questions." Interestingly, he asked who in my family taught me not to lie. He said "your Dad?" I said both of my parents taught me not to lie. He followed that with "and your teachers?" Yes. We talked about my personal background, like where I grew up. He asked whether I'd ever been married or divorced. He asked whether I had been a partner in the law firm I used to work for. He then explained how the examination works. There would be no "surprise questions." There would be a series of practice questions during which the "instrument" was off, and then the same questions would be asked with the instrument turned on. I would have the opportunity to clarify any issues with the questions during the practice questions, so that we both understood and so there were no miscommunications.

The examiner asked whether I knew anything about the polygraph. I told him I read the Wikipedia page on polygraph examinations except for the part about countermeasures. He said words to the effect of "well, we have a very sensitive instrument here that will detect any countermeasures, so there would be no point in trying to use them anyway."

We discussed a few preliminary matters concerning my application. Specifically, the drug-related incident for which I was later disqualified. I passed his questions, filled out a consent to polygraph form, and the examination began. He hooked me up to the machine by placing a finger on my left hand into a galvanic skin response device, placing a heated gel pad under my left hand, fitting me with a blood pressure type cuff, wrapping flexible plastic tubes around my torso, and telling me how to sit in the chair properly. The polygraph chair looks like a cross between a dentist's chair and the electric chair:

The chair has arm, seat, and feet movement sensors hooked up to the instrument.

The video camera was in the top corner of the wall pointed at me, but I didn't ask and he didn't say whether it was on. I don't recall the examiner announcing anything for the video camera like case number, start time, etc. He could have done this before I got there. Given that some examinations are multiple hours, it would make sense to only videotape the most important national security examinations or cases involving serious crimes. I don't know.

Because I have concluded that lawyers are singled out for especially negative treatment in the process, and because the DOD LEPET booklet contains sample relevant questions that are publicly available and nearly identical to the ones used by the FBI, I have decided to disclose all of the questions I can remember during the examination. Anyone who can demonstrate how this might be improper is invited to do so.

The examiner wrote out a series of numbers and explained that he would test my reactivity by asking me a question that would prompt a "known lie." He taped the sheet of paper on the blank wall in front of me. "Look straight ahead at the list of numbers on the wall. The lie will be when you tell me that the number in the box is not the number six. I am now turning on the instrument. Is the number one in the box?" No. "Is the number two in the box?" No. "Is the number three in the box?" No. "Is the number four in the box?" No. "Is the number five in the box." No. "Is the number six in the box?" No. "Is the number seven in the box?" No. "OK, we have a textbook reaction on that one, now we can begin." I thought to myself, "oh shit, that is a really sensitive machine." [The reaction occurs not when the "lie" is told, but occurs when the examinee thinks, "oh shit, that is a really sensitive machine!"]

Attorney-specific series
"Have you ever lied to or misled a client?" No [mild reaction--I felt my gut tensing up].
"Have you ever represented your assumption of a client's belief as fact?" No.
"Have you ever falsified a record of continuing legal education?" No.
"Have you ever overbilled a client?" No.

"Do you intend to lie to me today?" No.

"Have you ever gossiped about people?" No.

"Were you lying to me earlier when you rated yourself a nine on the scale of honesty?" No [mild reaction--afraid I overstated my honesty].

"Have you ever contributed to an organization that finances terrorism?" No.

Relevant Questions (the ones I'm sure about):
"Have you disclosed all of the information you have concerning your use of illegal drugs?" Yes.
"Have you ever committed a serious crime?" Yes. [Machine was off--practice question] "What serious crimes have you committed?" Just what's in my application--lying on a parking permit application and pirating software in college. "No, I'm not referring to what is disclosed in your written application, those are not serious crimes. Serious crimes are, for example, murder, rape, assault and battery, shoplifting as an adult, and other crimes of that nature. Have you ever committed any serious crimes?" No. [Machine goes on]. "Other than what you've told me about, have you ever committed a serious crime?" No.
"Are all of the statements in your application truthful?" Yes.
"Have you ever committed an act of espionage?" No.
"Is your name [John Doe]?" Yes.

The questions above are out of order; I don't remember the exact sequence. Refer to the LEPET booklet for information on sequencing and "priming" of the examinee.

After the first series of questions was asked, the examiner took the heated pad from under my left hand and went in the back room. He returned a couple of minutes later and replaced the pad under my hand. It was a lot warmer. I conclude he microwaved it for the prescribed amount of time to induce sweating in my left hand, which was bone dry at that point.

The post-test interview is an opportunity for the examinee to explain any reactions made on the test. If the reactions are to comparison questions and the examinee explains his reaction sufficiently, no further testing is done. For example, in my case I knew I reacted to the question "have you ever lied to or misled a client?" I told the examiner that my boss told me not to tell two particular clients bad news over the phone, but instead to have them come in personally. The clients asked me, over the phone, what I thought about a recent event in their case. I asked them to come in to discuss it. I told the examiner that I wanted to tell them the bad news over the phone, but I couldn't disobey my boss, and that it wasn't lying because they were going to come in personally. That resolved the issue. I also reacted to the question "were you lying to me when you rated yourself a nine on the scale of honesty?" I told the examiner I was afraid that I overestimated my honesty. There was no concern. The examiner told me that he didn't see anything in particular that was outside of acceptable parameters, but that headquarters would make the final decision. The whole process took an hour and the exam itself was forty-five minutes.

If the examinee fails to explain reactions or admits lying on the test, the examinee is history. Tip: NEVER ADMIT TO LYING ON THE TEST. It would be better to have an inconclusive result than a "fail." An inconclusive result ends your prospects with the FBI, but allows you to answer "no" to the question "have you ever failed a polygraph" when it is asked by other agencies.

If the examinee reacts to relevant questions, further "breakdown" testing is done to explore those areas. Had I reacted to the relevant question "have you ever committed an act of espionage," the question would be broken out into the elements of espionage: "have you ever had access to classified information?" "Have you ever disclosed classified information to an agent of a foreign power?" "Have you ever lost or misplaced classified information?" "Have you ever failed to report espionage activity you knew of?" And so on. The LEPET booklet is really helpful in understanding this area of questioning. In my case no breakdown questioning was necessary.

The examiner's last words to me on the way out were, "it was a pleasure meeting you. Truly."

My polygraph was easy, because I had nothing to hide and there is nothing dramatic in my background. Here is the report.

After considering all of the factors and my experience, I cannot possibly imagine "beating the machine." To do so would probably involve tranquilizers plus classified training from the CIA, or a psychopathic personality disorder in which the examinee actually believes he is telling the truth when he is lying, or doesn't care. In other words, Hannibal Lecter or Aldrich Ames. Ames caused the deaths of a number of American-run agents in the Soviet Union so that he could avoid being caught. I mean, seriously. Hopefully people who can beat the machine get filtered out with the biodata inventory at Phase I or in the background investigation.