Voluntary Statements Made During Administration & Post-Mortem of Polygraph Examination Are Admissible

State v. Dressel, Minn.Ct.App., 5/19/2009.  The State charged Mr. Dressel with various sexual and assault offenses against his three year old daughter.  Before the charges were filed, Mr. Dressel agreed to come into the police station in order to take a polygraph test.  Officers told him both before the polygraph and afterwards that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time.  Indeed, after the test, officers gave Dressel a ride home.

After taking the polygraph, officers told Mr. Dressel that he had failed it.  In the ensuing interview, Mr. Dressel made certain admissions.  Mr. Dressel moved to suppress the statements and admissions that he made during and following the polygraph examination.  (He also moved to suppress other statements made at a different time and location.)  The trial court excluded the statements, reasoning that they were "an extension of the polygraph examination" and not admissible.  The state appealed.

And won.  Existing case law excludes admission of three types of polygraph evidence:  the result of the exam, (State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); a defendant's willingness or refusal to submit to the exam,  State v. Anderson, 261 Minn. 431, 113 N.W.2d 4 (1962); and a defendant's actual submission to the exam, State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 142 N.W.2d 573 (1966).  On the other hand, statements obtained during the course of a polygraph examination - which apparently includes the post mortem when the cops tell a defendant how it came out - are admissible unless it's determined that such statements were involuntary.  In the context of polygraph examinations, there are two factors - which are not exclusive - that may cause such statements to be involuntary:

First, a statement provided in connection with a polygraph examination may be deemed involuntary if a law enforcement officer “misrepresent[ed] the reliability of the test.” Id.; see also State v. Davis, 381 N.W.2d 86, 88 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming district court’s finding that written statement provided after polygraph was involuntary, in part because examiner “attempted to convince [defendant] that the polygraph test is foolproof”). Second, a statement provided in connection with a polygraph examination may be deemed involuntary if a law enforcement officer has “falsely impl[ied] that the results will be admissible in evidence.” [State v. ]Jungbauer, 348 N.W.2d [344 (Minn. 1984)] at 346.

Because the trial court didn't address the voluntariness of the statements, the appellate court sends the case back for that determination.