Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Use of polygraph evidence in a disciplinary hearing

Use of polygraph evidence in a disciplinary hearing
Ost v Town of Woodstock, 251 A.D.2d 724

One of the issues raised in Ost was the admission of testimony concerning a polygraph [lie-detector] test in the course of a Section 75 disciplinary hearing.

Shawn Ost, a Town of Woodstock police officer, was terminated from his position for allegedly using his police vehicle to "give a young civilian woman a ride to her home outside the geographical boundaries of the Town, without authorization and subjected her to unwanted sexual contact."

Ost argued that the disciplinary hearing "was tainted by the admission of testimony regarding a polygraph test" of the [young woman] involved in the incident.

The Appellate Division said that such testimony may be considered in a Section 75 disciplinary hearing "if it is otherwise material and relevant, so long as there is ... as there was in this instance ... substantial evidence of the reliability of the machine and the qualifications of the operator."

As to Ost's complaint that "he was not offered an opportunity to take a similar test," the court commented that although Ost indicated that he would be willing to submit to such an examination, he never asked for a test to be scheduled or take any steps to arrange for one on his own.

Motell v Napolitano, 186 AD2d 989, is another case involving the use of evidence resulting from a polygraph test. In Motell the Appellate Division ruled that the disciplinary hearing officer did not err as a result of allowing the results of the polygraph test to be introduced as evidence.

The court said that where the record contains substantial evidence of the reliability of the polygraph machine used and the qualifications of the person administering the test, evidence of the results of such an examination may be considered by the hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 23, 2010 (boomark / email).