Resident warns third‑party polygraph narratives leave people without access or remedy

Eric Johnson, a resident of Andover, told the commission he is engaged in a Chapter 13 accuracy and completeness challenge involving a county community corrections department’s reliance on a third‑party polygraph narrative.

Johnson said polygraph systems collect physiological data that is then summarized into narrative reports used by the state in liberty‑impacting contexts such as probation monitoring. He argued Chapter 13 lacks clear requirements for how responsible authorities must ensure access, retention, and correction of third‑party data and offers no remedy to compel a nonresponsive vendor to produce raw data.

“As the state relies on third party polygraph outcomes, chapter 13 does not prescribe the mechanism by which the responsible authority must exercise access, retention, or correction obligations of the third party that generated the data,” Johnson said.

He also told the commission some counties have retention policies that destroy third‑party data after six months, while Chapter 13 imposes a six‑month cooldown on repeat requests, effectively preventing review and correction in many cases.

Senators asked for statutory citations and whether retentions vary by county; Johnson said he would follow up with specific policies. Members suggested reviewing retention schedules and recommended staff look for low‑cost fixes and consistent retention standards.

The commission did not adopt formal policy but members directed staff to collect examples and consider whether statutory changes or clearer guidance on third‑party data responsibilities are needed to preserve due‑process rights.