Polygraph

In this episode, information about polygraph tests will be discussed.  

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Is it illegal to lie to the police? Is it illegal for a police officer to look into your car when it's parked on the street? Do the police have to honor your request for a specific officer to respond to your call? For example, if you call and say, I want a female officer to take my complaint, do they have to honor that request? Welcome to Inside the Criminal Process, a podcast where I talk about the American criminal justice system and my experiences as a law enforcement officer in various roles over the course of 29 years. I'm Scott, and today I'm going to talk about a polygraph. I actually was looking at statistics the other day on my podcast, and I want to thank all the listeners that have tuned in. Hopefully I'm getting better at this, and I'm I'll make it more interesting for you. It's probably pretty boring listening to a lot of ums and ahs and so's. Um I'm working on that. Please, if you have any suggestions or you would like to hear specific things that you'd like me to cover, specific issues, um, any type of comments, suggestions, critiques, uh, don't hesitate to uh probably the best way to do that is to click on the fan mail link when you're when you're on one of my podcasts. I don't have all the platforms that the podcasts are on, so I can't look at I can't look at comments for all the different the platforms. So, but I really do appreciate you guys tuning in and listening. I've I have international listener listeners as well, people outside of the U.S., which is pretty cool. Um, and then I have people all over the U.S. that are listening. So I really do appreciate it. Um I hope I'm keeping your interest. Uh so let me know. So I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that polygraphs are 100% accurate. A lot of polygraph examiners want to give you numbers like oh, 95% accuracy, um, you know, 85 to 90 percent accuracy. The uh meta-analysis has indicated an accuracy accuracy rate between 70 and 90 percent. But but there's so many factors that go into that. The uh the training for the examiner, the different questions that are asked, the different tests that are administered, test construction, examiner skill, subject characteristics, environmental conditions, use of countermeasures, emotions, drug use, test selection, equipment, et cetera. There's so many different factors that go into every single test. I don't like using using a number. So what I will tell you that if you have an examiner who's been trained, who's well trained, who uses validated techniques, and it's a specific issue test, that is, did you commit the crime as opposed to a screening test, which is like a pre-employment test, which asks a whole bunch of different issues. The specific issue tests are are a lot more valid and accurate. And I will tell you that the the faith that I have in the polygraph is that if I was if I was accused of something that I did not do, I would immediately request a polygraph test. Uh I do trust it. However, I'm I'm not a great liar. When we were in class, the very first test that we all gave to one another, I was eating lunch in the in the classroom and the director of the school came up and said, Hey, I want you to go in that office back there and take that diamond ring off of the off of the desk and put it in your pocket, but you need to tell them no when they test on whether or not you have the diamond ring. So I did. So then we split up into groups. We gave everybody, went through a test, and then we got back together in class and we put the charts up on the on the screen in the classroom, and everybody knew that I was the person that was that had the ring that was lying. I've been uh so yeah, I can't beat the test. I'm not a good liar. Uh I react, I can feel myself reacting. And I've been interested in lie detection. I've been intrigued by it for quite some time. The uh a thing that they used to do back in the day, like years ago, in the Middle East, the way they would test for for liars is they'd put a donkey in a dark tent and they'd tell the person, hey, this the person that they were they were trying to figure out whether or not he or she was lying, they'd say, This is a magic donkey. And you're gonna go in there, you're gonna be the only one in the tent with the donkey, you're gonna pull on the tail. And if the donkey brays, which is the vocalization for donkeys, uh, that means you're lying. So they'd send the person in the tent in the tent, and it didn't really matter whether the donkey brayed or not, they had put soot or ink on the tail of the donkey. And when the person came out and said, Yeah, I pulled the tail, they checked to see if there was ink on the person's hand or soot or whatever they had they had soaked the tail with, um, just to see if you know the person had actually pulled the tail. So the theory was if if if the person's lying, they're not going to pull the tail. They're the only one in there with the donkey, so so we wouldn't know if they did or not. I used something with my kids, um, and I don't know remember, I don't remember where I learned this from, but I the three-hole punches, you know, they collect those little white dots from the paper that get everywhere every time you pick the thing up. I put one of those in my mouth and hid it under my tongue, and I told my boys, I said, Hey, you know, when you guys lie, there's a little white dot that shows up on the end of your tongue. So that's how I'm I'm gonna know whether or not you're lying to me. And I said, Let's test it. So ask me what my name is. One of them asked my name. I lied and said that it was it was Mark or something like that. And then I manipulated this white dot so that it was on the end of my tongue, and I opened my mouth and showed my tongue to the boys, and their eyes got huge. They were like, oh, wow. So growing up, whenever I suspected that one of my boys was not telling the truth, I said, Let me see your tongue. And you could tell right away whether or not they were lying because they'd keep their tongue in their mouth and shake their head no. If they weren't lying, their tongue usually came right out of their mouth to show it to me. So uh if you have kids, that works. It works for a while. Depends on how quickly they get wise to it. Uh I think my oldest son, I'm not sure how old he was, but I remember him showing me his tongue and then running into the bathroom to see if there was a white dot on there. So lie detection throughout the years has has evolved. It started out with just people thinking that the pulse quickened when somebody was lying, then they realized that there might be relative changes in blood pressure, um, then respiration, and finally galvanic skin response or electrodermal activity. That's that's the sweat gland activity that's measured when we do a polygraft. And that's I I think that's uh that's one of the more accurate readings that we take in the test. And it used to be a mechanical device. So when I took my first polygraph, it was it was in this, it looked like a briefcase, a metal briefcase. They opened it up, flattened it out. Um, and it was uh it was this machine with paper that would come out of it and these needles that would draw tracings on the paper, and they had these little uh knobs that they could adjust it with, and then they'd plug into all the sensors and run the test, and the paper was going the whole time. Now it's all computerized, so as long as you have a laptop and the software, you can plug the equipment into there, put the sensors on the person, and and do a polygraph test. The uh there's two general tests that we use. They're diagnostic, which is the specific issue test that I talk about. Uh did you rob the bank? Did you assault the person? Did you make the threats? Did you sell the drugs, etc.? And those those are either deception indicated, the the results are either deception indicated, no deception indicated, or no opinion inconclusive. And then there's screening tests. Um and I think some some sex offender testing is screening. That's it's usually what when I think of screening tests, I think of the pre-employment tests. You know, tell me all about the the times that you experiment with drugs, and then during the test you ask, you know, other than what you told me, have you had any drug use? Those are there's three results from that either significant reactions, no significant reactions, or no opinion or inconclusive. And when we when we do the test, we hook some that we hook the subject up to sensors. We have pneumos, we call them pneumos, they're pneumograph tubes. They're like corrugated uh rubber tubes that expand and contract, and we put one one on the upper chest, one on the lower chest. We have a blood pressure cuff that we inflate, and we have the GSR sensors or the sweat gland sensors, just metal, metal um plates that we place on the fingers. And there's usually a uh movement sensor that's in the chair. Sometimes people have them on the floor as well. And there's also kind of a newer sensor that's that's out now is the uh photoelectric plethismograph, which is just like one of those pulse pulse oximeters that they put on the on the index finger or one of the fingertips on one of the hands. So those are the uh the sensors that we use, and those are the things that we monitor during the test is the relative changes in blood pressure, heart rate, breathing, uh, sweat gland activity, and then blood volume going through that finger, and and obviously movement. Movement is something we watch because of when you move that can affect the uh all of the channels. There's three types of questions that that we ask. So I'm gonna I'm gonna go through the process that we use on a diagnostic test. So say we we're we're trying to figure out whether this person robbed the bank. I would sit them down and I would have a pre-test interview. I would have them tell me their story, uh, whether or not they robbed the bank, why people think that they did, or why they're why they're being asked to take the test. Um, and I would go through the questions with them. So before you even take the test, you're gonna know exactly what questions are gonna be asked. And the type of tests that I give for a specific issue, I use known truth questions, known lie questions, and relevant questions. So the known truth questions are I'll ask you during the test, are the lights on? I'll ask you, are you sitting down? And I ask, are you currently taking a polygraph test? So you should answer yes, yes, yes to all those, right? Because you actually are. Then there are known lie questions, and I know these are lies because I tell you to lie to them. There's something that really nobody can lie to. Uh the questions that I typically ask are, in your whole life, have you ever told a lie? In your whole life, have you ever made a mistake? And in your whole life, have you ever violated a traffic law? So I get no, no, no, because I tell people to say no. And I tell them, you have to know that you're lying to these. So I want you to think of a time when you've done these things when you tell me that you haven't. Not during the test necessarily, but know right now that you're when you say no, that you're lying to those those questions, because I have to see. I have to see a reaction. And those those work pretty well. I did have a lady one time when I asked her if she ever violated a traffic law, she said no. And she it was a it was a situation where she had never she had never driven a car, she didn't have a driver's license, so so that was uh that was an anomaly. I had to come up with something else to ask her for that, for an unknown lie question. And then there's the the relevant questions. Did you rob the bank? Did you rob the bank on this date? Did you rob the bank at this address on this date? So those it's the same questions, it just gets more specific. So I have three questions of each of those. We go through the through a chart, I'll ask you those those questions on three different three different tests. So I'll produce three different charts. And those questions are spaced throughout the the test so that they're between known lie and known truth questions. And then I will compare the reactions to the relevant questions to the reactions to the known lie and the known truth questions. So what should they what should the reactions to the relevant questions look like? They should look more like the known truth questions than they do the known lie questions. It's it's pretty simple, and I explain that to them, and then I go through an acquaintance test where I have them write a piece of write a number on a piece of paper. This is the this is the the very first thing we do once we've got the the questions set up because I want to make sure the equipment's operating and it's it's an acquaintance test. I the sensors are should already be hooked up. I turn it on, I say on that piece of paper, did you write the number one? Did you write the number two? I have them write a number between one and six. And I'll ask them, did you write the number one, did you write the number two, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And this this has taken a while because I have to I have to watch the the chart as we go and monitor it. Uh and I have them say no to every question. One through six, they s they say no to all those. And in about 98% of the cases, I can tell them what number that they wrote on the paper. If if it's if it's not, if if they wrote the different number on the paper that's in their pocket, um, then we'll go through it again. But but most of the time you can see, even though there's that they've got nothing to lose by lying to that, you can you can tell what number they've written down. So we'll do that acquaintance test, then we'll go through and I'll ask them. The the actual time during of the test, while you're doing the test, while you're hooked up to the sensors and answering questions, is anywhere from from five to eight minutes. So the test itself doesn't take very long once you get all the questions figured out and once you start going. And you'll go through that three times. Well, I'll pump up the blood pressure cuff, ask you the questions, get done, let the air out of the blood pressure cuff, ask them if they were comfortable with that, if they still understand the questions, all that, and then we'll do that. We'll do that two more times so that I can get enough data to make a decision as to whether or not they were there's deception indicated. That's called a could a control or a comparison question technique. It's very common. And it is there are several of those that are validated. I use one called the Utah technique, and I found it to be to be the best. I I think it's it's the most popular validated technique that there is. Um I could be wrong about that, but but it's the one that that I'm always I'm more comfortable with. There is another type of test called the concealed information test. They used to call it the guilty knowledge test. And it's where you would have sub suspects, several suspects of a crime, and you've you've you have five or six very unique um issues in that crime. So, like you have a point of entry, you have the crime itself. Say, for example, somebody, there's a home invasion robbery, somebody gets killed in the house. Uh, you have a point of entry, you have a point of exit, you have a weapon or the cause or the manner of death. Um, you have what what room the victim was in. There's very there's a lot of things that only the person that committed that crime is gonna know. So you will take these suspects and you'll put them through a test where you say, if you are the person that committed this crime, did you enter through the garage door? Did you enter through the front door? Did you enter through the bedroom window? And only the person that committed the crime is gonna know. So you'll go through all those questions and then you you use a what's called lichen scoring. It's and this is this test with lichen scoring is the most scientifically validated polygraph technique. Um just because it's based on detecting the orienting response to relevant information rather than comparing responses to relevant and irrelevant questions, which is the comparison question technique. So you're you're talking about recognition versus deception. And the Japanese police use this quite a bit. The Japanese police are are better at keeping things out of the media, though. They're better able to control what the media, what information the media has. So this is actually a test that's that's it's very common in Japan. It's not so common here just because of the media gets a hold of everything and and blasts it out to everybody, whether it's accurate or not, sometimes. I will tell you right now two things that will almost guarantee that you pass a polygraph is number one, tell the truth, and number two, follow the instructions. That's that's really all you can do. And and like I said, if you if if you're not if you haven't done what you're accused of doing, um you you should probably do a polygraph, although your lawyer's gonna tell you not to. The criminal defense lawyers always tell you don't to don't take the polygraph. And then in pre pre-employment tests, you know, the police departments, the federal agencies, they're not looking for for saints, but they're looking to see, you know, characteristics of a good candidate. And if you've done stuff in your past, they they expect that you've done stupid stuff as a kid. Most kids do. So you need to not to tr to to disclose everything and and not try to hide it. One of the biggest failure areas of of the pre-embloid test that I did was was drug use. People usually downplayed their their drug use and experimentation. So the different uses of polygraph, um, there's we use them a lot at the agency I was at for internal affairs cases. People that were accused of of misconduct. Um they use them for protective custody issues in the prisons. Uh post-conviction sex offender treatment. The uh sex offenders going through treatment have to pass maintenance polygraphs. They do an initial polygraph and then they do maintenance polygraphs where they ask them if they've looked at images on online or if they've they've thought about um different sexual things. I I'm not a peace out examiner, so I don't I don't really know um what those what those questions the exact questions are on there. They have infidelity tests where a spouse will suspect the other spouse of cheating and have say that they want them to take a polygraph test. I think if you're getting to the point where your spouse is having you take a polygraph test, your marriage is probably beyond being saved by a polygraph test, anyways. Um there's immigration tests, sexual addiction treatment tests, and and defense attorneys like to use tests, and I think what they do is they tell their clients, hey, if you can pass a polygraph that you didn't do this, we'll fight it, but otherwise we're gonna we're gonna try to take a plea bargain. So again, lawyers are always gonna tell their clients not to take a law enforcement test. Pre employment, you don't really have a choice if you're trying to get a a job with law in law enforcement or or with the federal. Some federal agencies you're gonna have to take a pre employment polygraph test. There was a an interesting research project done years ago when. I wish they'd I wish they'd do this one this one again. They split these people up into groups and they had one person in each group. And it seems to me like the groups were pretty large. Um they'd have one person in each group be um this the so-called bad bad person. And then they'd they it was somehow they they set it up so that this person would steal some type of package or object, and there would be uh an eyewitness to it. They would have the person sign for sign for this object or the package, and it they would, it was some type of object where they would, when they picked it up, they would put their fingerprints on it. So then they took the whole group of people and they did fingerprint analysis. They took all their fingerprints and compared them to the to the ones that were on the object. They would, they gave everybody polygraph, they did handwriting analysis because um the bad person had signed for the package, and then they used eyewitness identification. What that found was that the fingerprint evidence was the most accurate, it was the most accurate forensic method uh in the data. Polygraph was behind fingerprint, then handwriting analysis, and I think the handwriting analysis there was just too many inconclusives, and then eyewitness identification was the least reliable, which is crazy because all of that, all of those things, fingerprint, handwriting, and eyewitness identification are you are regularly admitted into court. Uh polygraph is the only one that that isn't, and it was the second most accurate way of determining who's who had uh committed this this the crime in the scenario. I know that the the polygraph's not 100% accurate because I've had people that I know are telling the truth that still felled or that showed that they were they were being deceptive, and I've had people that I found out later were actually lying and they passed. So again, you know, we had a an examiner that had zero inconclusives when he would do his tests, and and it's that's not statistically possible if you look at the statistics for for failures, passes, and and inconclusives. You're gonna there's examiners are gonna have a certain a certain number of inconclusives. There's three manufacturers of polygraphs. There used to be four. Excuse me. But one of the manufacturers bought the other manufacturer out. That's Lafayette bought limestone, and then Stolting is another company that makes them, and then Acceton. So there's there's three manufacturers, Stolting, Lafayette, and Acceton. And then the polygraph schools, they're most of them are 10 weeks long, and they cost about $6,000 to attend. There's last time I checked, there are 13 schools in the U.S. And then there's 20 schools throughout the world. Admissibility of polygraphs in court. So in 1923, a case called Fry v United States, a man named William Moulton Marston, he's a Harvard-trained psychologist and attorney, and he had he had invented the systolic blood pressure deception test in 1915. So he would put a blood pressure cuff on somebody and then put them through an interrogation and and monitor their their blood pressure while he was doing that. So this guy named Fry, he was arrested and charged uh with killing a prominent Washington, D.C. physician. He initially confessed, but then recanted his story, and he didn't have an alibi. Um so the legal team needed some help with their case. They contacted William Moulton Marston, who incidentally is also the creator of the Wonder Woman character. So if you ever watch the old cartoon Wonder Woman or the old show, she has a lasso of truth. If you've seen that. So that's that's her polygraph. That's how she can tell if somebody's telling the truth or not. She lassos them with this golden lasso and asks them questions. That test, the systolic blood pressure deception test, it measured relative changes in blood pressure while the person was being questioned. And and the theory, Moulton's Mr. Marston's theory was that that lying causes physiological response. So he gave the test to Frye, and Marston concluded that that Fry wasn't lying when he said he didn't kill Dr. Brown. So they went to court. And Frye was convicted. The conviction was a the conviction was appealed on the basis that the defense um the defense appealed because the the judge excluded the blood pressure test evidence. So the that was appealed, and the the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the conviction and that and they came up with the decision and the rule that would govern the admissibility of expert testimony until 1993. And that's basically uh the rule that governed admissibility. It's it said the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. So they said, you know, polygraph that this science hasn't been along uh around long enough for people to to for it together gain general acceptance, so we're not going to accept the testimony. That came in, that that was the rule for admissibility uh of all expert testimony until 1993 when the Daubert Daubert case came up, and it was Daubert pharmaceutical case. Then the rule became relevant and reliable. So the ruling in that case was there's a more liberal admissibility standard, uh allowing the admission of expert testimony pertaining to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the tri or fact to understand the evidence or determine the fact in issue. So now it was left up to the trial judge. The trial judge would hear all the arguments, listen to everybody, and decide whether or not to allow the expert terror testimony in. There are some states that still go, still use the Fry doctrine because that's that's still good law. And there's there's states that use Daubert, and and the federal government uses uses uh Daubert deciding whether or not the the expert testimony is going to be admitted. In some states, the police are prohibited from administering a polygraph to any complaint. Um in most states, I think, sex assault victims the police cannot offer a polygraph examination to a sex assault victim. There is a state in in New Mexico, they regularly allow polygraph evidence. It's not, it's not automatic. So in a criminal trial, again, it's up to the judge's discretion whether or not to admit it. And this is these are admissions above and beyond both parties agreeing. So if you if you're accused of something, you take a polygraph and your defense attorney wants to admit it to court. If the if the prosecution agrees to it, both parties agree. Um some courts will will allow that in. Some states that they will allow polygraph evidence if both parties agree to it. So in New Mexico, you don't need two parties. It's just up to the judge's discretion discretion. Even then, the court retains the authority to exclude the evidence uh, you know, if it determines that it's too prejudicial or if its prejudicial effects substantially outweighs its probative value. In civil court in New Mexico, it's the same deal. It's up to it's up to the court whether or not to admit it. Uh the results are just one factor among many. Uh in some courts, they just don't want, they just don't want people focusing on polygraph results. And in New Mexico, they're licensed, the examiners are licensed and regulated by the government. Not all states require a license. In some states, you can just buy the polygraph equipment, call yourself a polygraph examiner, and and go do polygraphs. A law that affects polygraphs is the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. Basically says that private employers cannot use polygraphs for pre-employment screening or during employment employment. Um you can't use polygraphs like if somebody's accused of workplace misconduct. There are exceptions. Government employers are accepted from this requirement. Pharmaceutical companies can use polygraphs, and there's some security companies like armored cars and alarm companies that can also use polygraphs for pre-employment and during employment. There's also an exception that's if a private company experiences an economic loss where an employee had access to the assets, and there's documented reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, like theft or embezzlement, then you can use a polygraph, but you're that's gonna cause a lot of litigation there. The state in which I live, there was a there's a an appellate court case where there was a police officer that was accused of wrongdoing. He was going through the internal affairs case, they thought he wasn't telling the truth. They told him he had to go take a polygraph. He refused, his lawyer told him to refuse, and they fired him, and he appealed and said, you know, it's not admissible. So my lawyer just told me not to take it. The court didn't address admissibility, the court just basically said, if it's part of the policy of that law enforcement agency that you may have to take a polygraph test, you have to do it. They didn't discuss whether or not the the results would be admitted. They just said you refuse to cooperate with the investigation, so they upheld the termination. And there was a US Supreme Court case called U.S. V. Sheffer, where uh an airman, Air Force airman failed a urinalysis test, but passed a polygraph on the question of whether or not he he had used drugs. He wanted to admit that evidence into the the court that he had passed the polygraph and the there's a the UCMJ, which is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, had a rule of or has a rule of evidence um that's that basically says polygraph evidence and expert testimony is not is not admissible in the in the military courts. So that was that went up to the highest military court and I think that court he he was convicted, and that court reversed and said that not letting him use that evidence that he passed the polygraph violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. So that was appealed by the government up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed that, basically saying, you know, there's no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable. We don't want the fact finder, which is the jury or the judges, to give undue weight to testimony of an examiner. There's a lot of collateral arguments on there, the type of test, the the subject, the equipment. There's just so many things that can be litigated in that. They just they just thought it would cause an inordinate amount of time and expense. So a lot of the stuff that that there's two turns I'm going to explain to you here. A term that that lawyers refer to, it's dicta. And it's short for obit or dictum, it just basically refers to statements or comments made in passing, especially during a judge's decision. Uh the statements aren't essential to the decision and they're not legally binding. So it's basically well, here's how we feel, this is what we feel, but it's not part of the the decision of the ruling. And that's they use the term dicta for that. So a lot of the polygraph stuff that they talked about in that case is is dicta. And the especially the the discussion, the court's discussion of polygraph reliability, that was all dicta. It wasn't essential to the holding and it wasn't necessary to the reasoning that supported the decision. So the polygraph evidence itself was not factual, was not a factual finding in the decision written by Justice Thomas. And then another thing is that this was a plurality opinion, which means that uh a plurality opinion is a court decision where the majority of judges agree on the outcome, but not on the reasoning. So it makes it a little less authoritative than a majority opinion. So, and I think it was Justice Stevens dissented. Um, he didn't agree with the majority regarding the polygraph. He actually pointed out that it was probably hypocritical for the government to request that the polygraph evidence not be admissible when the government uses the polygraph quite a bit. So I thought that was that was interesting. Going forward, there's two University of Utah professors that have that have uh invented this eye detect system where the your pupil size is measured while you're asked questions. And that's that's been shown that uh it's pretty promising as far as the validity and accuracy of that of that machine. There's also talk of like doing polygraphs while being monitored in a in an MRI type environment. Uh I don't know anything about that, and I haven't I haven't researched it. So that's it for the polygraph. If if I've missed something or there's questions or whatever, please just use the fan mail link to to type them in there and I'll I'll I'll cover those. This is a lot to cover, and I was trying to cut down on the time. So the questions that I asked, uh, it's not against the law to lie to the police, at least in my state. It is illegal to provide false information, like including misidentifying yourself. That can actually lead to a charge of criminal impersonation if you use somebody else's name and date of birth. And that's a felony. And they have to the police have to prove, though, that you either were giving somebody else's name and date of birth to avoid a consequence or to cause harm to that person. If you just make up a name and date of birth, um it could probably be charged with providing false information to a police officer. Like if you traffic stop, oh, I don't have my ID, this is my name, this is my date of birth, and you make it up or you give the wrong one. Um that's that's providing false information to the police. I will tell you though, it is unlawful to lie to a federal agent. So that's a federal law. If you're being investigated by the feds and they're questioning you and you lie and they they can prove that you lied, that is gonna get you, that's gonna get you charged, arrested and charged. So the search, can the police look into your car if it's parked in a public place? That's known as the plain view doctrine. The officer has to be legally present where they are and where they can see into the car. And so, like during on a public street or during a traffic stop, they can only look with their eyes. They can use a flashlight, but they can't reach into the car to move something. Like if something's covered by a a purse or a piece of paper or something, they can't reach in and move it. There can be no physical intrusion. And if the car is on private property and the police have no reason to be there, they need to get a can a search warrant or consent to search it. So request for specific officers. There's nothing in the law in my state that says the police have to honor a request for a specific officer. It's gonna be a case-by-case basis. Now, if if somebody asked for a supervisor, they absolutely, the agencies I worked for would absolutely send a supervisor to the to the scene. But if somebody said, I don't want to talk to this officer, I want a different officer, or I want a female officer, or something like that. That doesn't necessarily need to be honored. I think as a supervisor, if it's if it's going to be not overly burdensome to provide a specific officer to a person, um it might just to avoid any claims of misconduct, uh, it might not be a bad idea to to have a female officer respond. If one's available and if you're able to do it, you know, obviously if it's Friday night and the calls are going crazy. Um, people can't just decide who they want to come and handle their case. So next week I am going to discuss an assault. Was it kidnapping, an assault, a sex assault case I was part of as an officer, and uh valuable lesson I learned from that case. I may have a couple other cases where I talk about the same the same type of thing, the same lesson. Um but again, I want to thank you for listening and take care.