polygraph test (South Dakota) · Go Syfert
← South Dakota issues

polygraph test in South Dakota

11 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Montgomerygreen
ca8 · 2011 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018The court’s determination is further supported by the fact that Bertram’s polygraph test was -11- #28063 unilateral—a “privately commissioned polygraph test, which [is] unknown to the government until after its completion, is of extremely dubious probative value[.]” United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074, 1094 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1217 (6th Cir. 1995)).

11
United States v. Keith Sherlin (94-6111) and Tracy Teague (94-6112)green
ca6 · 1995 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018The court’s determination is further supported by the fact that Bertram’s polygraph test was -11- #28063 unilateral—a “privately commissioned polygraph test, which [is] unknown to the government until after its completion, is of extremely dubious probative value[.]” United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074, 1094 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1217 (6th Cir. 1995)).

11
People v. Brooksgreen
illappct · 2002 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 341 (noting that the results of a portable breath test are inadmissible in Illinois as evidence of intoxication); Eickhoff, 84 Ill.Dec. 300 , 471 N.E.2d at 1068 (noting that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial and therefore the refusal to take the polygraph test is also inadmissible); Driver, 183 A.2d at 658 (holding results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial, as is the refusal to take the test). [¶ 41.] Defendant next argues that SDCL 32-23-10.1 4 makes the refusal to submit to chemical analysis of blood, urine, breath, or other bodily su

11
People v. Eickhoffgreen
illappct · 1984 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 341 (noting that the results of a portable breath test are inadmissible in Illinois as evidence of intoxication); Eickhoff, 84 Ill.Dec. 300 , 471 N.E.2d at 1068 (noting that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial and therefore the refusal to take the polygraph test is also inadmissible); Driver, 183 A.2d at 658 (holding results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial, as is the refusal to take the test). [¶ 41.] Defendant next argues that SDCL 32-23-10.1 4 makes the refusal to submit to chemical analysis of blood, urine, breath, or other bodily su

2005Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 341 (noting that the results of a portable breath test are inadmissible in Illinois as evidence of intoxication); Eickhoff, 84 Ill.Dec. 300 , 471 N.E.2d at 1068 (noting that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial and therefore the refusal to take the polygraph test is also inadmissible); Driver, 183 A.2d at 658 (holding results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial, as is the refusal to take the test). [¶ 41.] Defendant next argues that SDCL 32-23-10.1 4 makes the refusal to submit to chemical analysis of blood, urine, breath, or other bodily su

11
State v. Drivergreen
nj · 1962 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005Brooks, 778 N.E.2d at 341 (noting that the results of a portable breath test are inadmissible in Illinois as evidence of intoxication); Eickhoff, 84 Ill.Dec. 300 , 471 N.E.2d at 1068 (noting that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial and therefore the refusal to take the polygraph test is also inadmissible); Driver, 183 A.2d at 658 (holding results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial, as is the refusal to take the test). [¶ 41.] Defendant next argues that SDCL 32-23-10.1 4 makes the refusal to submit to chemical analysis of blood, urine, breath, or other bodily su

11
State v. McQuillengreen
sd · 1984 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, ¶ 28 , 560 N.W.2d 535, 541 (citing State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, ¶ 26 , 556 N.W.2d 311, 319 (citing State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984))). [22] While the trial court ruled any references to the polygraph test were inadmissible at trial, we find Anderson's answers indicate he was knowledgeable of the law, which goes to the second voluntariness factor, level of intelligence and education.

11
State v. Darbygreen
sd · 1996 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, ¶ 28 , 560 N.W.2d 535, 541 (citing State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, ¶ 26 , 556 N.W.2d 311, 319 (citing State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984))). [22] While the trial court ruled any references to the polygraph test were inadmissible at trial, we find Anderson's answers indicate he was knowledgeable of the law, which goes to the second voluntariness factor, level of intelligence and education.

2000State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, ¶ 28 , 560 N.W.2d 535, 541 (citing State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, ¶ 26 , 556 N.W.2d 311, 319 (citing State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984))). [22] While the trial court ruled any references to the polygraph test were inadmissible at trial, we find Anderson's answers indicate he was knowledgeable of the law, which goes to the second voluntariness factor, level of intelligence and education.

11
State v. Thompsonyellow
sd · 1997 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, ¶ 28 , 560 N.W.2d 535, 541 (citing State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, ¶ 26 , 556 N.W.2d 311, 319 (citing State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984))). [22] While the trial court ruled any references to the polygraph test were inadmissible at trial, we find Anderson's answers indicate he was knowledgeable of the law, which goes to the second voluntariness factor, level of intelligence and education.

2000State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, ¶ 28 , 560 N.W.2d 535, 541 (citing State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, ¶ 26 , 556 N.W.2d 311, 319 (citing State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984))). [22] While the trial court ruled any references to the polygraph test were inadmissible at trial, we find Anderson's answers indicate he was knowledgeable of the law, which goes to the second voluntariness factor, level of intelligence and education.

11
State v. Caffreygreen
sd · 1983 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990The polygraph test was not used as a psychological threat, or figurative “rubber hose”, in the manner proscribed in State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1983).

1990The polygraph test was not used as a psychological threat, or figurative "rubber hose", in the manner proscribed in State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1983).

11
State v. Dornbuschgreen
sd · 1986 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989See State v. Dornbusch, 384 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 1986); State v. Anderson, 387 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.1986).

1989See State v. Dornbusch, 384 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 1986); State v. Anderson, 387 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.1986).

11
State v. Madsengreen
ariz · 1980 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

11
People v. Andrewsgreen
calctapp · 1970 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973See also, People v. Andrews, 14 Cal.App.3d 40 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 49 , where it was held to be reversible error (when considered in conjunction with the prosecutor’s misconduct on an unrelated matter) for the trial court to have asked a key prosecution witness whether he had taken a lie detector test and whether the charges against him had been dismissed after such test, to which the witness replied in the affirmative. 5 .

1973See also, People v. Andrews, 14 Cal.App.3d 40 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 49 , where it was held to be reversible error (when considered in conjunction with the prosecutor’s misconduct on an unrelated matter) for the trial court to have asked a key prosecution witness whether he had taken a lie detector test and whether the charges against him had been dismissed after such test, to which the witness replied in the affirmative. 5 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Tenorio green
ca10 · 2015
1 sentence

2018Id. at 1128 .

12018–2018
Loop v. Class green
sd · 1996
2 sentences

1999Cf. Loop v. Class, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 24 , 554 N.W.2d 189, 193 . [3] At one point in the interview, Bradley volunteered to take a polygraph test if done in the presence of his attorney who was representing him on an unrelated criminal matter.

1999Cf. Loop v. Class, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 24 , 554 N.W.2d 189, 193 . [3] At one point in the interview, Bradley volunteered to take a polygraph test if done in the presence of his attorney who was representing him on an unrelated criminal matter.

11999–1999
Satter v. Solem green
sd · 1990
2 sentences

1996This court addressed the statements in Satter IV, and held them involuntary because “[T]he failure of the State to fulfill its promise [to offer a polygraph test] invalidate[d] Satter’s waiver of his rights and ma[de] his statement involuntary.” Id. (citing Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 , 83 S.Ct. 917 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963)).

1996Also that the State will not contest or object to the polygraph test being offered as evidence.” Satter IV, 458 N.W.2d at 769 .

11996–1996
Lynumn v. Illinois green
scotus · 1963
2 sentences

1996This court addressed the statements in Satter IV, and held them involuntary because “[T]he failure of the State to fulfill its promise [to offer a polygraph test] invalidate[d] Satter’s waiver of his rights and ma[de] his statement involuntary.” Id. (citing Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 , 83 S.Ct. 917 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963)).

1996This court addressed the statements in Satter IV, and held them involuntary because “[T]he failure of the State to fulfill its promise [to offer a polygraph test] invalidate[d] Satter’s waiver of his rights and ma[de] his statement involuntary.” Id. (citing Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 , 83 S.Ct. 917 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963)).

11996–1996
State v. O'CONNOR green
sd · 1972
2 sentences

1990State v. O’Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

1990State v. O’Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

11990–1990
State v. Muetze green
sd · 1985
2 sentences

1990State v. O'Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

1990State v. O’Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

11990–1990
State v. Waff green
sd · 1985
2 sentences

1990State v. O'Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

1990State v. O’Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

11990–1990
State v. Watson green
sd · 1976
2 sentences

1990State v. O'Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

1990State v. O’Connor, 86 S.D. 294 , 194 N.W.2d 246 (1972); State v. Watson, 248 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1976); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1975); State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D.1985).

11990–1990
State v. Anderson green
sd · 1986
2 sentences

1989See State v. Dornbusch, 384 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 1986); State v. Anderson, 387 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.1986).

1989See State v. Dornbusch, 384 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 1986); State v. Anderson, 387 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.1986).

11989–1989
State v. Kolander green
minn · 1952
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

11986–1986
State v. Zaehringer green
iowa · 1979
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 *686 Ariz. 346, 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

11986–1986
People v. Hogan yellow
cal · 1982
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

11986–1986
People v. Carter green
cal · 1957
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

1986See, e.g., State v. Madsen, 125 Ariz. 346 , 609 P.2d 1046 (1980); People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 31 Cal.3rd 815, 647 P.2d 93 (1982); People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 312 P.2d 665 (1957); State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1979); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952).

11986–1986
United States v. Effie Sylvia Little Bear green
ca8 · 1978
1 sentence

1983In addition, the record does not indicate the FBI agents advised Ms. Little Bear that she could refuse to take the polygraph test, discontinue it at any point, or decline to answer any question. 583 F.2d at 413 .

11983–1983
Mattox v. State green
miss · 1961
2 sentences

1973Such explicit reference to a polygraph test was held to be reversible error in Mattox v. State, 240 Miss. 544 , 128 So. 2d 368 , where several direct references were made to the fact that the state’s key witness had taken a lie detector test.

1973Such explicit reference to a polygraph test was held to be reversible error in Mattox v. State, 240 Miss. 544 , 128 So. 2d 368 , where several direct references were made to the fact that the state’s key witness had taken a lie detector test.

11973–1973

Where else courts name it

TX 173 (1964–2025) PA 114 (1955–2026) IL 100 (1966–2026) OH 90 (1973–2025) NY 74 (1968–2025) CA 70 (1959–2025) MI 64 (1970–2026) IN 56 (1971–2025) GA 51 (1975–2021) NJ 48 (1964–2026) FL 42 (1963–2026) MS 38 (1975–2022) OR 36 (1974–2025) WA 35 (1972–2026) MA 32 (1968–2025) MD 32 (1964–2021) NC 31 (1975–2014) WV 29 (1979–2023) TN 29 (1964–2026) AZ 29 (1964–2025) WI 27 (1974–2021) LA 24 (1970–2017) MN 23 (1977–2017) MO 22 (1974–2024) AL 21 (1971–2014) IA 20 (1972–2021) NM 19 (1974–2024) KS 17 (1969–2024) ME 15 (1975–2017) AR 15 (1978–2025) VA 15 (1986–2025) CO 14 (1981–2012) SD 11 (1973–2018) KY 10 (1977–2020) SC 10 (1973–2016) OK 10 (1977–2025) CT 9 (1966–2016) DE 8 (1981–2018) MT 8 (1978–2008) NH 8 (1965–2023) WY 7 (1977–2025) UT 7 (1985–2025) ND 7 (1978–1998) NE 6 (1979–2020) ID 6 (1979–2018) NV 4 (1976–1991) AK 4 (1979–1989) HI 4 (1962–2025) DC 4 (1996–2018) RI 3 (1981–1984) VT 3 (1975–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check