Texas Commission on Law Enforcement advisory group debates polygraph certification rules, forms subcommittee on model policy

Members of an advisory committee to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement met to review draft rules and to consider creating a model policy and continuing-education listings for a new law-enforcement polygraph certificate.

The chair (S1) opened the session and staff member (S6) summarized the draft structure: rules would live under a certificate section with a separate responsibilities or chief-administrator section, while a companion list of commission-approved conferences would be maintained on TCOLE's website. "The important part is that we get the structure in place and that we meet the requirements that you expect," S6 said, urging the committee to focus on the substance and leave detailed placement in the manual flexible.

The committee clarified continuing-education mechanics: the certificate would require 30 hours of continuing education, with at least 16 hours obtained at a commission-approved conference. S6 described a practical reporting mechanism: the commission would assign course numbers for conferences so attendees could report hours under a single course code that TCOLE would recognize for credit. "We would give you a code that you would use as a course number to report hours at an APA conference or hours at an AAPP conference," S6 said.

Several members raised practical concerns about the conference requirement. Committee member (S7) warned that many county travel policies require approval by a county commissioners court and that limiting 16 hours to out-of-state conferences could unintentionally put some officers out of compliance with local travel rules. S6 responded that putting the requirement in rule could help field officers obtain necessary local approval because it would be a state requirement tied to the certificate.

Members also debated who must hold the certificate. Staff (S6) said the draft distinguishes pre-employment polygraphs — where "any person" conducting pre-employment polygraphs in a law-enforcement context must hold the certificate — from criminal-investigation polygraphs, where a peace officer must hold the certificate. "For the criminal ones, we're only requiring in here that a peace officer has to have that certificate," S6 said, noting limits to the agency's jurisdiction over nonpeace-officer activity in criminal investigations.

The group discussed whether to draft a model policy for agencies that employ polygraph examiners. Member (S5) urged caution and cited case law — including the Daubert standard and recent Texas appeals decisions — to underscore that polygraph use implicates evolving legal standards. "If we treat polygraph as a true forensic science, then there's some standards of practice that have to be followed in order for it to be considered as acceptable," S5 said, and recommended limiting any model policy requirement to agencies that actually employ examiners.

S6 added that model policies are operationally useful because many chiefs rely on their own policy manuals rather than chapter or rule language: putting a model policy in an agency manual gives local administrators a clear operational reference while allowing the model to evolve more easily than a rule.

Committee members moved to form a subcommittee to draft a model policy and to assign the continuing-education work to an existing continuing-education subcommittee. The motions were seconded and the group agreed to proceed; members noted the continuing-education subcommittee already included several members (Bonnie and Josh among them). S6 said the commission’s credentialing staff (Colin Grissom) would be involved in assigning course numbers and capturing reporting in TCOLE’s systems.

The committee also asked staff to clarify an apparent requirement that training providers submit final exams as part of course submissions; S6 said that looked like a misunderstanding and agreed to follow up offline. Members discussed mentoring and field proficiency requirements and generally agreed those items are best handled at the agency level or addressed as recommendations within a model policy rather than enforced centrally by TCOLE.

The committee set scheduling goals: proposed findings and recommendations were to be ready by July 23, and members tentatively agreed to meet again on May 11 to continue refining draft language. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded.

Next steps: the newly assigned subcommittee(s) will draft a model policy limited to agencies that employ polygraph examiners and will propose a list of commission-approved conferences and course numbers for S6 and credentialing staff to operationalize.