Are lie detector tests admissible in court in the state of Virginia?
542711
The U.S. Supreme Court found polygraphs to be unreliable. In an 8-1 vote, it decided in 1998 that lie-detector results CAN be banned from trials; however, STATES are allowed to set their own policies. \n\nVirginia does ban them BUT, employees of police departments, sheriff's departments and jails currently are the only government employees who can be forced to take a lie detector test. There was a bill offered in the state legislature about 5 or six years ago.......I am not sure if it became law (it did pass in the Lower House) to provide the same protection to these employees that ANYONE else in the state has with regard to polygraphs as evidence at a trial.\nHope this helps
300998
as said, older lie detectors generally measure a few biorythmic variables like pulse and persperation, and require a highly trained operator to tabulate the results.\n\na couple of new forms of lie detection also include variables like pupil dilation, brain scanning techniques, and I recall hearing about one that even measured certain hormone levels in the blood.\n\nnewer lie detectors can be computer controlled, but generally still require a human's intuition to make the final call.  Since humans have to interpret the data, it makes the test somewhat error prone, which is one of the reasons that lie detectors cannot be used as testimony in court.\n\nIt is entirely possible to "beat" the lie detectors too, but I understand that it requires a certain degree of mental training.
953302
...The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969).  The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand.  Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined.  This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave.  Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not.  For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.  \n\nDuring interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a case.  For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not.  The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect.  In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape.  In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case.  During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime.  The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement.  The Court determined that the criminal defendant’s confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness.  Id.  \n\nPolice officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception.  In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendant’s fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victim’s checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook.  The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession.  Id.  at 258.  Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement.  Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible.  Id., at 259.  \n\nIn order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated.  Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996).  Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing.  In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened.  The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder.
743272
Despite what you've read, a state can extradite for a misdemeanor warrant if they want to.  \n\nAs to your question: DMV does not check for outstanding warrants in California or any other state.
346657
Contact your state representative or sentator.  They'll find out for you.\n\nIn the meantime, here'a link to the appeals process:\n\nhttp://www.va.gov/vbs/bva/pamphlet.htm
363361
Certainly not in the virginioa state. However, you may be asked to paste your photograph and fingerprints if you could not read and write or any court has debarred you from signing the legal document due to any disease.
630650
Lying is wrong but only illegal if you are talking to the cops or a judge.
227429
Wow.\n\nFirst of all, are you saying that a body wire in Washington State requires judicial authorization?  If that's what you are saying, do you *know* it to be true? (if so, please explain).  It's not required in California, but I know Washington has some different laws about recording conversations.\n\nAfter reading the rest of your question (what is your question, by the way?), I'm not sure I'm seeing what you need to know.  As I read the details of what you're calling the "first P.C.", I don't see any constitutional problems with it.  It's certainly not the way I'd run a CI buy, but I don't see anything defective about it.  Probably gonna' be a good argument for a defense attorney as it relates to chain of custody for the drugs, but I don't see anything "wrong" with what you're describing here.\n\nI also don't know what a "Seatons Safe" is, so maybe that would help.\n\nI guess I can take a stab at the answer, though:\n\nAssuming probable cause (i.e., judicial authorization) *is* required for a body wire, I don't see where you've established here in your question that there's anything false in the probable cause.  \n\nHearsay is normally perfectly admissible in probable cause hearings (at least in California) and I'd be surprised if it isn't in Washington.  \n\nBut...assuming everything you said is true and accurate...\n\nOrdinarily, if the probable cause for something is found to be false (and that's a difficult thing to deal with on Yahoo Answers, without all the details...what you think of as false might only be an unfortunate turn of events that nobody could foresee), then whatever comes of that probable cause would more likely than not be tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.  I don't think the hearsay issue enters into the discussion.\n\nAs for cases you can cite (note spelling), I can't help you with that.  You're really going to need an attorney to help you out with that; if you're being charged with something where you think these issues exists, you don't want to try representing yourself...there are too many finer points here for a layperson to have knowledge of.
38649
If you live in a state that allows court info to be public, they should have a website.  I live in Virginia and I check on the judicial system website.  I found it by doing a google search "virginia judicial system".  You may want to try that with your state.
617769
There are lie detector tests, Jerry Springer, Murry. You can ask your best friend.You can ask your bf. You can hire a PI.\nBUt if you have a good gut feeling then they probably are.
801432
See: http://www.vadoc.virginia.gov/offenders/community/faqs.shtm
1082189
No.  Vagrancy laws that used to require such things have been declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
791621
in no way whatsoever ( it is not accurate enough for court ) sorry for the pause - at work\n\neven if we ever get a test that is 100% accurate the effect will be minimal \n\nwe would not use it in crime solving ( self incrimination ) nor in business ( right to privacy )
283574
Well if you're looking for court opinions then why are you posting on Y Answers?  Each state has it's own laws regarding this, and then there are federal rules as well.  In either case the laws all make it a crime for failing to show if you don't have an excuse that is considered valid under the law.  Next if taking an Oath is a violation of your beliefs you can state that to the judge who can then just make you affirm/promise that you'll follow the rules/law.  \n\nAgain though without knowing the state your talking about it's hard to provide much more then that.
553566
Virginia - (2002 law) - Illegal used in furtherance of a felony.
285249
As long as u didnt lie about anything.but depending on the state your in the state can press the charges instead of you.
194928
Even if it is prosecution quality (which requires data collaboration) you still need some other evidence even if circumstantial.  The extent will depend on the case.\n\nYou can win a civil case on the basis of balance of probability with CCTV alone I believe.