WASHINGTON State Case Law - 

(A Quick Guide)-published by the American Polygraph Association.

For much more information about polygraph, go to the American Polygraph Association official website at- http://www.polygraph.org/

Admissibility- Admissible upon stipulation by the parties.

 NEW- US v. Rafael Davila_Cummings, CR-03-021-RHW, CR-03-022-RHW, (Wash. St. 2005) Order denying the government's motion in limine in opposition to the admission of polygraph evidence.

State v. Clark, 24 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2001) (Although polygraph results are not admissible at trial unless stringent conditions have been met, such evidence may be considered in a probable cause affidavit to support the issuance of a search warrant.)

State v. J.A.B., 2001 WL 479594 (Wash. App. Div. 1  2001) (unpublished opinion) (Although the Washington Supreme Court has suggested it might reconsider whether unstipulated polygraph evidence is admissible if the proffering party demonstrates that the polygraph evidence met the Frye general acceptance standard, defendant presented virtually no evidence to suggest polygraph evidence meets the general acceptance test, and the trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a Frye hearing.)

Subia v. Riveland, 15 P.3d 658 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2001) (Evidence of inmate’s polygraph examination which indicated inmate was telling the truth concerning her allegation of repeated sexual relations with correction sergeant were admissible in defense against sergeant’s race discrimination suit, as such evidence demonstrated a nondiscriminatory reason for disciplining sergeant.)

State v. Combs, 10 P.3d 1101 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2000) (The court upheld polygraph testing to monitor sex offender’s compliance with requirement that he make reasonable progress in treatment and other special conditions of community supervision.  The court noted, however, that such polygraph testing could be used only to monitor compliance with the community placement order and could not be used as a fishing expedition to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present.)

State v. Julian, 9 P.3d 851 (Wash.App.Div. 3 2000) (Polygraphs, like urinalyses, are classified as monitoring tools rather than actual conditions of community placement.  Therefore, the court can impose them to enforce other lawful conditions of probation.)

State v. Jacobsen, 977 P.2d 1250 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1999) (Juvenile court could properly order polygraph testing as part of psychological evaluation of juvenile adjudicated guilty of child molestation, even though polygraph testing not specifically authorized by statute or stipulated to by the parties.)

  State v. Riles, 957 P.2d 655 (Wash. 1998) (Trial court had authority to order polygraph testing during sex offender’s mandatory community placement terms for purposes of monitoring offender’s compliance with placement conditions.)

  State v. Dods, 941 P.2d 1116 (Wash.App.Div. 2 1997) (Even assuming that an un-Mirandized statement made by sex offender during post-conviction polygraph test was inadmissible, later voluntary Miranda statement to investigating police officer was admissible and did not have to be suppressed as the fruit of a poisonous tree.)

  In re Dependency of K.R., 904 P.2d 1132 (Wash. 1995) (Where defense counsel successfully moved for admission of unstipulated polygraph testimony, he may not later, under the doctrine of invited error, seek its exclusion.)

O’Hartigan v. Dep't of Personnel, 821 P.2d 44 (Wash. 1991) (Applicant for non-sworn position with state patrol alleged pre-employment polygraph examination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection.  The court held that the state patrol had a legitimate interest in ensuring that prospective law enforcement employees are of the highest moral and ethical character, permitting intrusion upon right to privacy through polygraph examination, subject to certain guidelines, and that the exemption of applicants for law enforcement provisions from state statutory prohibition of use of non-consensual polygraph testing of employees did not violate equal protection.)

  State v. Cherry, 810 P.2d 940 (Wash.App. 1991) (Polygraph examination results can be used to determine existence of probable cause to search defendant’s home.)

  State v. Reay, 810 P.2d 512 (Wash.App. 1991) (In a civil action to compel the medical examiner to change his decision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting polygraph evidence which had been considered by a medical examiner to determine cause of death, in that the polygraph evidence was relevant to the medical examiner's opinion and was not offered to prove the guilt or innocence of examinee.)

  Industrial Indem. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Kallevig, 792 P.2d 520 (Wash. 1990) (Evidence of insured’s refusal to submit to polygraph examination is inadmissible in bad faith breach of insurance contract claim against insurer for failure to pay for fire loss.)

  Carnation Co., Inc. v. Hill, 776 P.2d 158 (Wash.App. 1989) (Isolated remark by claimant’s counsel during closing argument to effect that claimant had been willing to take a polygraph test was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.)

  State v. Woo, 527 P.2d 271 (Wash. 1974) (Polygraph evidence is inadmissible, absent a written stipulation by both parties.  Court stated it may consider a departure from the rule against admissibility of polygraph examination if it were furnished with a record sufficient to permit its review of the subject.)

  State v. Griggs, 656 P.2d 529 (Wash.App. 1982) (Where parties have stipulated to the results of a polygraph examination, the trial judge should instruct the jury that the examination does not tend to prove or disprove any element of the crime charged, in that it is for the jury to determine what corroborative weight and effect such testimony should be given.)

  See also: State v. Ahlfinger, 749 P.2d 190 (Wash.App. 1988); State v. Grisby, 647 P.2d 6 (Wash. 1982).

  Licensing Laws

  No licensing in Washington State.

  Statutory Provisions- Employees or prospective employees may not be required to take a polygraph or similar test as a condition of employment or continued employment with exceptions for law enforcement agencies, persons who manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances, or persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security.  An employer in violation is, in addition to actual damages, subject to an award or a penalty in the amount of $500, as well as costs and attorney fees.  R.C.S.A. § 49.44.120.