A state Court of Appeal ruled Monday that cities and counties may require applicants for jobs as police officers to submit to polygraph tests about their character and background. In a 2-1 decision, the panel rejected claims that such testing violated the state constitutional right to privacy or conflicted with statutes that bar such tests for public safety officers already on the job. "(Municipalities) have a compelling governmental interest in conducting a comprehensive background investigation and in utilizing the polygraph examination to protect the public from applicants who may be attempting to conceal undetected criminal activity, racial prejudice, sexual aberrance or violent tendencies," Appellate Justice James F. Perley wrote for the court. The panel noted that the right to privacy was "not absolute" -- and said that a city's interest in ensuring its officers were of the highest integrity outweighed any harm suffered by an applicant who loses a job opportunity for refusing the test. The court acknowledged that some critics have questioned the reliability of the polygraph, or so-called "lie detector." But proponents and opponents of the device agree that a polygraph test can distinguish between truth and deception "with an accuracy greater than chance," the panel said. "Given a police officer's unique status in society, compulsory polygraph testing of applicants for police officer positions is justified," Perley said. The decision sought to resolve an important question left open by a ruling by the state Supreme Court in 1986 that held unconstitutional any involuntary polygraph tests for public employees. State statutes already had barred such testing of private employees and police officers. The court's holding, however, did not settle the issue for applicants for public safety jobs. Monday's ruling, unless overturned by the state high court, will be binding on trial courts throughout California. According to attorneys in the case, at least half of the cities and counties in the state currently require applicants for public safety jobs to take polygraph tests. Michael H. Roush, an attorney representing the city of Vallejo in its defense of the practice in the case before the court, welcomed the ruling. "Cities have an interest in making sure they hire the right candidates for jobs that have important powers in this society," he said. Richard L. Pinckard, a deputy city attorney representing San Diego and three other cities backing Vallejo in the case, said the ruling was especially important in view of state laws barring polygraph exams for officers already on the job. "The only place to catch (wrongdoers) is at the pre-employment stage," he said. San Francisco attorney Duane W. Reno, who represented a former officer who challenged the tests, said an appeal to the state Supreme Court would be considered. Reno said there are "less intrusive means" to screen applicants. The ruling came in the case of Clarence E. Rust, a former police officer in the city of Vallejo who was granted disability retirement for chronic back problems but later sought reinstatement to the Police Department. Rust refused the city's requirement that he take a polygraph test and filed a lawsuit, charging violation of his constitutional and civil rights. In support of his suit, he cited the statutes that prohibit officers from being forced to submit to such tests against their will, along with language in the 1986 state high court decision suggesting cities would bear a heavy legal burden in justifying the tests for applicants for public safety jobs. A Solano County Superior Court rejected Rust's claims and the Court of Appeal, in its ruling Monday, affirmed that ruling, concluding that both applicants -- and ex-officers seeking reinstatement -- could be required to take the tests as a condition for getting the job. The panel noted that pre-employment polygraph screening is widely used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Although 23 states, including California, have in some way restricted tests, 14 have specifically permitted law enforcement agencies to conduct them for applicants, the court said. Perley's 23-page opinion was joined by Appellate Justice Carl West Anderson. In dissent, Appellate Justice Marc Poche said that ex-officers like Rust should be treated like officers holding jobs and be protected against involuntary testing when they seek reinstatement.
A California State Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that cities and counties could require applicants for jobs as police officers to submit to polygraph testing. In 1986 the State Supreme Court held that any involuntary polygraph testing of state employees was unconstitutional, but the court's ruling did not settle the issue as regards public safety jobs. In the case at hand, a man who had taken disability retirement sought reinstatement but was denied unless he would submit to polygraph testing. He refused, saying that there were less intrusive ways to screen applicants, but the court ruled that public safety outweighed his argument.