Court Opinion

ID: 9730394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:11:17.760164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.197102
License: Public Domain

*751OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion which concluded that the board was entitled to consider the polygraph results. The majority bases its opinion on the fact that evidentiary rules are relaxed in this type of administrative proceeding. I would reverse and remand to the agency for rede-termination without this evidence.
First of all, the majority uses Matter of Fairbanks for the proposition that polygraph results “are of some value.” However, in that administrative law case, the court affirmed the reinstatement of plaintiff who was discharged for failing to take a polygraph test regarding the disappearance of some tires. The court stated that “the potential for error and resulting implication of the innocent remain as grounds for continued judicial distrust of the polygraph until such time as scientific data establishes its reliability.” Therefore, I believe absent demonstrated reliability we should not allow these results to be admitted in any sort of evidentiary capacity.
Secondly, the majority states that in any event the plaintiff was not prejudiced because the polygraph examiner stated that the results were not conclusive and the board was mindful of that fact. However, even with the caution by the examiner, the poison of the results still remain. Cf. State v. Green, 254 Iowa 1379, 121 N.W.2d 89, 91 (1963). In a case such as this, where a major determining factor in the ruling has been the credibility of one witness over another, I do not believe that “substantial rights of the parties” can be preserved by allowing into evidence an inconclusive polygraph result which was objected to during the proceedings.
In view of the fact that the supreme court has voiced its distrust of such results, I do not agree that this proceeding can come clean of this taint without a reversal and remand for further consideration absent the polygraph results.
HAYDEN, J., joins in this dissent.