STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5357

August 25, 1978

POLYGRAPHS:

Admissibility as evidence in civil cases

EVIDENCE:

Admissibility of ploygraphs in civil cases

Neither the fact of the taking of a polygraph examination nor the results of such examination are admissible into evidence in a civil case.

Honorable Mark Clodfelter

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion on the following question:

The answer to this must be considered in light of the Forensic Polygraph Examiners Act, 1972 PA 295, MCLA 338.1701 et seq; MSA 18.186(1) et seq, and the holdings of both state and federal courts in this area.

The Forensic Polygraph Examiners Act, supra, is an act to license and regulate persons who use devices and instruments referred to as lie detectors, forensic polygraphs, emotional stress meters and the like.

1972 PA 295, supra, Sec. 26, provides, inter alia:

In People v Frechette, 380 Mich 64; 155 NW2d 830 (1968), the Michigan Supreme Court, reversing a 1935 murder conviction, stated:

Subsequently, the Michigan Court of Appeals has adhered to the rule that polygraph results are inadmissible. See Sponick v City of Detroit Police Department, 49 Mich App 162; 211 NW2d 674 (1973); and People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477; 221 Nw2d 235 (1974), which recognized that the results of a polygraph examination, are not admissible into evidence. I am aware that in People v Powell, 76 Mich App 237, 241; 256 NW2d 583 (1977), the court, admitted statements given in the course of a polygraph examination for impeachment purposes, but this use of such statements was qualified and the court noted:

Thus, recently in People v Alexander, 78 Mich App 91; 249 NW2d 307 (1976), the Honorable Judge Kelly of the Michigan Court of Appeals pointed out that it is the Michigan Supreme Court's role to '. . . fashion the proper limitations and exceptions to the polygraph rule.' 72 Mich App at p 97; 249 NW2d at 310:

More recently, in People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352; 255 NW2d 171 (1977), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether the results of a polygraph test may be used to assist a trial judge in deciding whether to grant a motion for a new trial. In an opinion by Justice Williams, concurred in by two other justices (three justices did not participate and one dissented), it was held that, although polygraph tests are not admissible in evidence, 'a judge may use, in his discretion, polygraph tests and testimony offered by a defendant [in a criminal case] only to help determine whether to grant a post-conviction motion for a new trial.' 400 Mich at 359.

The fact that Michigan is not alone in excluding the results of polygraph examinations into evidence was recognized by the court in People v Bush, 54 Mich App 77; 220 NW2d 333 (1974), the court referring to inadmissibility held:

I am aware that, in United States v Ridling, 350 F Supp 90 (ED Mich SD, 1972), the court held that a polygraph examination may be admitted under limited circumstances, but the Michigan Court of Appeals, in People v Levelston, supra, noted that this decision was an isolated exception to the general rule of inadmissibility and that there is no reason why Ridling, supra, should be followed. The court concluded:

Therefore, it is my opinion that the results of polygraph examinations may not be offered as evidence in civil cases.

Frank J. Kelley