Adopted: November 17, 2003
BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL &
OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION
STUDY OF THE UTILITY AND
VALIDITY OF VOICE STRESS
ANALYZERS
3600 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230-4917
(804) 367-8500
http://www.state.va.us/dpor
Adopted: November 17, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ................................................................................................. 1
Statutory Authority........................................................................................ 2
Methodology ............................................................................................. 5
Findings
A. Polygraph History ......................................................................... 6
B. Voice stress analyzer history ............................................................ 7
a. Types of voice stress analyzers ................................................. 7
b. Cost analysis chart of voice stress analyzer v. polygraph ................ 8
C. General findings of the literature review ............................................. 9
D. Other states, government agencies and voice stress analyzers ..................14
Conclusion & Recommendation ......................................................................16
References ................................................................................................17
Appendix A - Summaries of Written Comments Received
Appendix B - Attendees of the Public Hearing Session(s)
Appendix C â Aviation and Transportation Security Act S.1447
Appendix D - House Bill No. 2812
Appendix E - Senate Bill No. 1296
1
Background
On March 26, 2003, Governor Warner signed into law House Bill 2812 and Senate Bill 1296
which provide for the use of alternative truth detection devices, specifically, Computer Voice
Stress Analyzers under such conditions determined by the Director.
On May 15, 2003, after reviewing the new law and acknowledging their inexperience with this
new technology, the Polygraph Examiners Advisory Board directed staff to approach
the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation (BPOR) and request a study be
conducted of the Computer Voice Stress Analyzers (CVSA).
On June 2, 2003, the BPOR, after listening to extensive public comment, reviewed the request
made by the Polygraph Advisory Board and agreed to complete the study.
Section 54.1-1805 (Effective until July 1, 2005) of the
Code of Virginia
outlines the instruments
to be used by polygraph examiners and approval of other instruments by the Director.
A. Each examiner shall use an instrument that records permanently and simultaneously the
subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument
may record additional physiological changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness.
B. In addition, the Director may approve the use of other instruments that record physiological
changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness or the verification of the truth of
statements, including a computer voice stress analyzer, by examiners licensed under this chapter
under such conditions as determined by the Director. Such conditions shall include a provision
requiring the examiner, prior to the use of such instrument, to (i) complete a Director-approved
training course on its operation and (ii) be certified by the manufacturer on the use of such
instrument. However, no instrument approved pursuant to this subsection shall be used by a
police department in conducting a background investigation of an applicant for employment as a
police officer or in administrative investigations involving a police officer.
(1975, c. 522, § 54-922; 1988, c. 765; 2003, cc. 545, 554.)
§ 54.1-1805. (Effective July 1, 2005) Instrument to be used.
Each examiner shall use an instrument which records permanently and simultaneously the
subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument
may record additional physiological changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness.
(1975, c. 522, § 54-922; 1988, c. 765; 2003, cc. 545, 554.)
2
Statutory Authority
§ 54.1-310 of the
Code of Virginia
(
Code
) provides the statutory authority for the Board for
Professional and Occupational Regulation (the Board) to study and make recommendations to
the General Assembly on the need to regulate professions or occupations and, if so, the degree
of regulation that should be imposed.
The Board has the authority to advise the Governor and the Director on matters relating to the
regulation of professions and occupations. In addition, the General Assembly may request that
the Board conduct a study. The General Assembly is the body empowered to make the final
determination of the need for regulation of a profession or occupation. The General Assembly
has the authority to enact legislation specifying the profession to be regulated, the degree of
regulation to be imposed, and the organizational structure to be used to manage the regulatory
program (e.g., board, advisory committee, registry).
The Commonwealthâs philosophy on the regulation of professions and occupations is that:
The
occupational property rights of the individual may be abridged only to the degree necessary to
protect the public.
This tenet is clearly stipulated in statute and serves as the Boardâs over-
arching philosophy in its approach to all its reviews of professions or occupations:
. . . the right of every person to engage in any lawful profession, trade or
occupation of his choice is clearly protected by both the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
Commonwealth cannot abridge such rights except as a reasonable exercise
of its police powers when it is clearly found that such abridgement is
necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the
public. (
Code of Virginia
§ 54.1-100)
Further statutory guidance is provided in the same
Code
section which states that the following
conditions must be met before the state may impose regulation on a profession or occupation:
1.
The unregulated practice of a profession or occupation can harm or endanger
the health, safety or welfare of the public, and the potential for harm is
recognizable and not remote or dependent upon tenuous argument;
2.
The practice of the profession or occupation has inherent qualities peculiar to
it that distinguish it from ordinary work or labor;
3.
The practice of the profession or occupation requires specialized skill or
training and the public needs, and will benefit by, assurances of initial and
continuing professional and occupational ability; and
4.
The public is not effectively protected by other means.
3
Pursuant to § 54.1-311 of the
Code,
when the Board recommends that a particular profession
or occupation be regulated, or that a different degree of regulation should be imposed on a
regulated profession or occupation, it shall consider the following degrees of regulation in
order:
1.
Private civil actions and criminal prosecutions. â Whenever existing common
law and statutory causes of civil action or criminal prohibitions are not
sufficient to eradicate existing harm or prevent potential harm, the Board may
first consider the recommendation of statutory change to provide more strict
causes for civil action and criminal prosecution.
2.
Inspection and injunction. â Whenever current inspection and injunction
procedures are not sufficient to eradicate existing harm, the Board may
promulgate regulations consistent with the intent of this chapter to provide
more adequate inspection procedures and to specify procedures whereby the
appropriate regulatory board may enjoin an activity which is detrimental to
the public well-being. The Board may recommend to the appropriate agency
of the Commonwealth that such procedures be strengthened or it may
recommend statutory changes in order to grant the appropriate state agency
the power to provide sufficient inspection and injunction procedures.
3.
Registration â Whenever it is necessary to determine the impact of the
operation of a profession or occupation on the public, the Board may
implement a system of registration.
4.
Certification â When the public requires a substantial basis for relying on the
professional services of a practitioner, the Board may implement a system of
certification.
5. Licensing â Whenever adequate regulation cannot be achieved by means
other than licensing, the Board may establish licensing procedures for any
particular profession or occupation.
Pursuant to § 54.1-311.B.
of the
Code,
in determining the proper degree of regulation, if any,
the Board shall determine the following:
1. Whether the practitioner, if unregulated, performs a service for individuals
involving a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare.
2.
The opinion of a substantial portion of the people who do not practice the
particular profession, trade or occupation on the need for regulation.
4
3.
The number of states which have regulatory provisions similar to those
proposed.
4.
Whether there is sufficient demand for the service for which there is no
regulated substitute and this service is required by a substantial portion of the
population.
5.
Whether the profession or occupation requires high standards of public
responsibility, character and performance of each individual engaged in the
profession or occupation, as evidenced by established and published codes of
ethics.
6.
Whether the profession or occupation requires such skill that the public
generally is not qualified to select a competent practitioner without some
assurance that he has met minimum qualifications.
7.
Whether the professional or occupational associations do not adequately
protect the public from incompetent, unscrupulous or irresponsible members
of the profession or occupation.
8.
Whether current laws which pertain to public health, safety and welfare
generally are ineffective or inadequate.
9.
Whether the characteristics of the profession or occupation make it
impractical or impossible to prohibit those practices of the profession or
occupation which are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
10.
Whether the practitioner performs a service for others which may have a
detrimental effect on third parties relying on the expert knowledge of the
practitioner.
5
Methodology
The Methodology follows the newly adopted
Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Need to
Regulate Professions and Occupations
adopted by the Board at its meeting on June 2, 2003:
â˘
Publish the information on the
Study on the Use of Voice Stress Analyzers
in the Virginia
Register of Regulations on Monday, August 11, 2003 to begin the sixty day public
comment period to end October 10, 2003.
â˘
August 11 and 12
t,
2003 Mail a Memorandum to the public soliciting written comments
and provide information regarding the date, time, and location of the public hearing
sessions.
Mailings were sent to the following:
(1) Virginia police departments and sheriffâs offices, as well as, any other criminal
justice institution registered with the Department of Criminal Justice Services,
(2) Public Participant Group (PPG) list that the Board maintains,
(3)
Members of the Virginia General Assembly,
(4) Members of the Virginia Association Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
â˘
Conduct public hearing session in four geographical locations: Roanoke, Chesapeake,
Richmond, and Arlington.
â˘
Research the laws and statutes in other jurisdictions.
â˘
Identify the States and other localities that currently approve or prohibit the use of this
detection device.
â˘
Utilize the Internet as a research tool to obtain independent research available on the
topic.
â˘
Obtain and review information from other sources on the topic to include publications
from books, articles, and journals.
â˘
Review and summarize the written comments from the public received during the sixty
day public comment period.
6
â˘
Review and summarize the contents of the four public comment sessions.
Findings
A. Polygraph history
The polygraph measures changes in a personâs body that are associated with the stress of
deception. Today, polygraphs customarily measure changes in blood pressure, stomach and
chest breathing patterns, galvanic skin response (perspiration), the pulse wave and amplitude.
The theory behind polygraph is, when a person lies it produces stress and this stress is reflected
in changes in breathing, heart rate and perspiration. Many other changes may occur, but are
not necessarily measured by the polygraph equipment: the pupils get larger, digestion slows,
and the bodyâs blood supply is redistributed away from the skin and gastrointestinal regions
toward the muscles.
Rubber tubes are placed over a subjectâs chest and abdominal area to measure respiratory
activity. Small metal plates attached to the fingers record sweat gland activity and a blood
pressure cuff monitors the cardiovascular system.
Conventional machines use moving paper feeders and styluses that record the simultaneous
input from the three physiological responses. Computerized polygraphs generate chart analyses
from the data and display the results on a computer screen.
A polygraph test consists of only âyesâ and ânoâ questions and is only conducted with the
consent of the examinee.
In most cases, decisions are based on analysis of the physiological data recorded using four
polygraph channels (cardiovascular, electro dermal, and two respiratory channels). The
measures used by the polygraph were selected in the 1920âs and 1930âs because they were
simple to record, they were sensitive, and they were accurate.
The effectiveness of the polygraph has been the subject of hundreds of controlled scientific
studies that support its procedures and its continued use. According to Frank Horvath of the
American Polygraph Institute, (2002 ABC News, Polygraph Q & A), âcritics contend the test is
about 70% accurate, while proponents claim itâs 90% accurateâ.
It is generally accepted that polygraph results are not allowed as evidence in court; however,
this may vary from state-to-state and on a case-by -case basis.
Current Cost of equipment: Approximately $13,000.00
7
B. Voice stress analyzer history
According to a report on Voice Stress Analyzers, First Sergeant of the Prince William County
Police Department â Donald L. Cahill, âThe voice stress analyzer first came into being in the
law enforcement arena during the early 1970âs through research and development by private
individuals and the U.S. Army. Original [sic] developed in the form of the Psychological
Stress Evaluator (PSE); its purpose was to graphically display stress in the voice of a speaker
when asked relevant questionsâ (Cahill, 1999, pg. 1).
The theory is that the voice stress analyzer works by measuring âmicro-tremorsâ in the human
voice. Micro-tremors are described as, âinaudible vibrations that speed up uncontrollably when
a person is lyingâ (Webby, S., 2001, pg 2). The tremor varies according to the amount of
stress. The more stress, the less tremor (Clede, B., 1998, pg.3 ). While the subject is
speaking, the computer equipment measures and displays any changes in the vibrations. For
each voice pattern the machine shows a graph: a high peak denotes a true statement, while
jagged plateau indicates a lie.
The current computer analyzer equipment utilizes a microphone and can be used covertly,
overtly, via telephone or cell phone, tape recorder, and any other technology that can record a
voice.
The National Institute for Truth Verification (NITV) manufactures of the computer voice stress
analyzer (CVSAâ˘), report that its analyzer has about a 98% accuracy rate. Michael Brick, a
Representative of the Southern Association of Certified Voice Stress Analyzers, Inc., stated at
the Richmond Public Hearing Session (Reference Transcript), that âIt can test any language. I
have tested deaf mutes. As long as they can make a sound. If they can make a sound, they can
be tested.â He later explained that the youngest person that he tested was four years old and
the oldest person was in their late eighties.
As earlier noted with polygraph results, it is generally accepted that voice-stress results are not
allowed as evidence in court, however, this may vary from state-to-state and on a case-by-case
basis.
Current Cost of the equipment: Approximately $10,000.00 (will vary by type of equipment
selected and the Manufacturer)
a.
Types of voice stress analyzers
8
There are currently many available voice stress analyzers (VSA) on the market today. The
major VSA vendors market their products on a laptop with specific software, while few are
sold as an electronic device with the software embedded on its chips.
* Some examples are:
-
Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), Dektor Counterintelligence and Security, Inc.
-
Lantern, The Diogenes Group, Inc.
-
Vericator, Trustech Ltd. Integritek Systems Inc.
-
Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSAâ˘), National Institute for Truth Verification
(NITV)
-
VSA Mark 1000, CCS International Inc.
-
VSA-15, CCS International Inc.
-
Xandi Electronics (markets a kit)
*
Reference (Haddad, Ratley, Walter, Smith, 2002)
b. Cost analysis chart of voice stress analyzer v. polygraph
VSA
Polygraph
Initial cost of system
$9,250.00
$13,000.00
Tuition for 1 student
$1,215.00
$3,000
Length of training
6 days
8 weeks
Cost of Room and Board @ 70.00 per day
$420.00
$3,920.00
Salary for student while in training
$769.00
$6,153.84
(U.S. Average)
Number of exams that an examiner can
7 exams
2 exams
Conduct per day
Average percent of inconclusive results
0%
20%
On exams
Can unit analyze audio tapes for truth
yes
no
Verification?
Do drugs, medical condition, or age
no
yes
Affect testing?
9
Total expense
to purchase 1 unit
And train 1 agent
$11,654.00
$26,073.84
* Reference (Haddad, Ratley, Walter, Smith, 2002)
C. General findings of the literature review
It appears that some law enforcement agencies, outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, are currently utilizing the computer stress analyzer in several different capacities to
carry out their duties:
(1)
Overt Interview â a live interview by a Computer Stress Analyzer (CSA) examiner.
These interviews are conducted with prior knowledge and permission that certain
questions will be recorded live and captured by the CSA equipment for analysis.
(2)
Covert Interview â a live interview by a CSA examiner. These interviews are
conducted without the prior knowledge and permission that certain questions will be
recorded live and captured by the CSA equipment for analysis.
(3)
Pre-employment screening
(4)
Internal affair investigations
Note
: At the discretion of the Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational
Regulation (§ 54.1-1805), the Commonwealth of Virginia currently prohibits the use of voice
stress analyzers to be used in any law enforcement duty related capacity.
Literature, written comments received and the public hearing session document some of the
benefits of being able to use the voice stress analyzer are:
-
It would allow law enforcement officers to achieve maximum admissible interrogation
results by providing a relaxed environment with no sensors, pressure tubes, and
pressure cuffs. Or special chair;
-
It is convenient and would allow for interviews to âstrike when the iron is hotâ;
-
It is cost effective;
-
It would all law enforcement to utilize new technology;
-
Low training and education time;
-
Less time to administer v. the traditional polygraph test.
Detective/Sergeant Don Wiebe of the British Columbia Police Department reports that the
CVSA⢠has shown a 100% accuracy rate after using it for a six month timeframe. He states
that the CVSA⢠has been used 35 times and that âall the tests conducted have either had the
results confirmed by investigation or confessionâ (Weibe, no date given,
Conclusion of the six
month report on the computer voice stress analyzer prepared for the Saanich, B.C. police
department
).
10
But, are results confirmed by investigation of confessions the same as validity? Some would
argue this as âyesâ, while others would argue ânoâ. This is the center of a revolving argument
for those individuals and groups that are either âforâ or âagainstâ the use of the voice stress
instruments in law enforcement agencies.
A review of the literature revealed that there have been no scientific studies conducted, to date,
to measure the validity of the computer stress analyzer to detect deception. It has been argued
that the computer stress analyzer is more cost effective, convenient, and more user friendly than
the traditional polygraph equipment, however, one question still remains unanswered: how
reliable is the equipment in its actual ability to detect, measure, and display changes in voice
frequency? Has it ever been scientifically measured? The answer to this question is ânoâ.
Manufacturers contest that their computer stress analyzers are 100% accurate and effective by
producing testimonials as a foundation to their claims, but this is not widely accepted as
scientific validity.
A Court of Appeals Case (Case no.00-01886-CR), State of Wisconsin v. Paul D. Hoppe
(2001), indicates that telling a defendant (during questioning) that a âcomputer voice stress
analyzerâ test showed that the defendantâs answers had not been âcompletely truthfulâ to be a
coercive tactic. The basis for this claim reads:
That is, the reliability of the computer voice stress analyzer test as a âtruth
verificationâ method has not been established in the scientific community to the
Wisconsin courts and it may never be.
The literature review further revealed a publication announcing a â
Warning to the Public
â on
the use computer voice analyzer equipment for pre-employment purposes (2003,
The truth
about voice stress technologies
, www.voicestress.org).
The announcement was to those individuals who may have lost a job opportunity with a law
enforcement agency because they had wrongly failed a voice stress analyzer test. It states:
Most large police agencies are governed by state or municipal civil service rules
or laws, which make them also subject to the US governmentâs Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rule 29 CFR 1607, the Uniform
Guidelines on the Employee Selection Procedures (July 1, 1998). According to
the EEOC, all employee selection tools must meet the minimum standards,
including validation. It is simply a matter of law that departments must use
validated tools for hiring, such as the MMPI, CPI, polygraph, urinalysis,
intelligence tests or others that have withstood independent scientific
investigation. They are specifically prohibited from using unvalidated methods.
The voice analyzer technology falls into the unvalidated category. If you took a
voice stress to get a law enforcement job, it is a violation of your rights under
11
these EEOC provisions. Contact your attorney for more advice.
A 2002 final report on the investigation and evaluation of voice stress analysis technology tested
the methodology and results of the testing and evaluation of two voice stress analysis systems.
The report concluded, âThat the two VSA units do recognize stress through voice analysis;
however, although these systems state they detect deception, it was not provenâ (Haddad,
Ratley, Walter, Smith, 2002).
Another 2002 study conducted by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI)
research division staff investigated the computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) for its ability to
identify stress-related changes in voice. The study provided no evidence to support the CVSA
for its ability to identify stress-related changes in the voice (Meyerhoff, Saviolakis, Koening, &
Yurick, 2002).
As previously stated, the polygraph has been the subject of numerous well-controlled laboratory
studies and field studies which support the polygraph and its associated procedures and
processes. The U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), which is
congressionally mandated to study new technologies and equipment which purport to have
values in the area of lie detection, conducts many of these studies. The Department of Defense
Polygraph Institute is charged with training all federal examiners including employees of the
Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigations.
There is an absence of scientific research regarding the voice stress analyzer from the
promoters of the equipment and the scientific community. Proponents of the computer stress
analyzer claim relatively high deception detection accuracy rates. However, these claims are
based primarily on anecdotal evidence rather than evidence obtained through rigorous
systematic study.
David Hughes, Executive Director for the National Institute for Truth Verification, in his
discussion at the Richmond Public Hearing Session on his experience with the computer voice
analyzer stated: (Reference Transcript)
Accuracy rate is a nebulous term. Because if you fail the test and you donât
confess, I donât know if it was accurate or not, do I? The case may never be
resolved. Just like polygraph, when I used it, it was just a tool. Many, many,
many times they didnât confess. I donât know if it was correct or not, in my
interpretation, my conclusion, as we call it.
A series of studies by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute was designed to compare
the validity of data collected using a traditional polygraph instrument to that collected using
CVSA. The studies have produced no evidence that the use of the CVSA provides accuracy
rates better than chance. DoDPI acknowledges that the voice analysis could offer many
advantages over current polygraph methodology. For example, voice stress samples can be
12
recorded without discomfort to the subject. Such devices could also be of benefit to the nationâs
intelligence and counterterrorism investigation of they could be used secretly. It found to be
valid;
any
new device that could supersede the traditional testing devices would be heartily
endorsed. Regrettably, DoDPI has found no credible evidence in scientific literature or in their
own research that voice stress analysis is an effective tool for determining deception.
Additional studies by DoDPI in 1996 further analyzed the accuracy and effectiveness of the
computer voice stress analyzer (Janniro & Cestaro, 1996). Using a mock theft scenario, 109
subjects were randomly assigned to two groups and given detection of deception examinations
using a CVSA instrument. Subjects on one group were programmed deceptive and participated
in taking $100.00 from a metal box located in a scenario room. The non-deceptive group did
not participate in the scenarios nor did they have knowledge of the mock theft. Four trained
and verified CVSA examiners conducted the examinations using a CVSA technique called the
Modified Zone of Comparison test. Test chart evaluators, who had not taken part in the study
and who were blind to subject programming, obtained an overall accuracy of 49.8%.
Decisions were not significantly different from chance in determining deceptive or non-
deceptive subjects. The results of this particular study are criticized by those who support the
use of the CVSA stating a premise that the CVSA is a stress analyzer that captures and displays
degrees of stress based on âjeopardyâ and a reasonable degree of accuracy cannot be expected
where âjeopardyâ does not exist.
The Executive Summary released by the Department of Defense reports that The National
Research Council also completed a literature review of VSA in October 2002 and the findings
were:
While the initial portion of the report suggests evidence connecting vocal lie
production with fluctuations in vocal tension and pitch, the weak support for
detecting deception using voice technologies is quickly addressed. Twelve
studies were reviewed in this report. The combined results from these VSA
studies indicated accuracy rates at or below chance levels, and low levels of
reliability, both being necessary cornerstones for a successful diagnostic tool.
The report concludes that there is little or no evidence, scientific or otherwise,
for the application of VSA in the detection of deception. While it is noted that
the possibility exists that VSA may achieve higher accuracy rates with higher-
stress paradigms, no such work exists in the known literature.
Finally, several studies that were published in 2002 found the following:
Horvath, Frank. (2002). (Abstract)
Experimental comparison of the psychological stress
evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception
. National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. NCJ Number: 196941.
** Full-Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
13
Focus: examine the validity of the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a voice
mediated lie detector.
Conclusion: findings were consistent with previous research and do not indicate that
PSE is effective in detecting deception.
Barland, Gordon. (2002). (Abstract)
Use of voice changes in the detection of deception
.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number 196942.
** Full-Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: conduct two experiments assessing the validity of voice stress analysis for the
detection of deception.
Conclusion: a certain amount of stress must be reached within an individual before
reliable stress-related changes occur in the voice.
Lynch, Brian; & Henry, Donald. (2002). (Abstract)
Validity study of the psychological stress
evaluator
. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number: 196938
** Full-Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: to investigate the validity and inter-judge agreement of the Psychological Stress
Evaluator (PSE) through examining the rate of detection of arousal in spoken words.
Conclusion: findings indicate that pattern identification of voice stress resulting from
utterance of taboo and neutral words was a chance occurrence. It suggests future
studies be conducted to investigate the PSE in comparison with other physiological
measures to determine if it is dependent on some minimal level of stress to be effective.
Brenner, M.; Branscomb, H; & Schwartz, G. (2002). (Abstract)
Psychological stress
evaluator: Two tests of a vocal measure
. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ
Number: 196939. ** Full-Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: conduct two laboratory tests/experiments on the validity of the Psychological
Stress Evaluator (PSE).
Conclusion: two conclusions drawn from the same evidence include: (1) some aspects of
the PSE analysis of stress are valid suggesting the need for further studies; and (2) the
present instrument is subject to serious practical problems raising doubts about its
appropriateness.
Suzuki, A.; Watanabe, S.; Taheno, Y.; Kosugi, T.; & Kasuya, T. (2002). (Abstract)
Possibility of detecting deception by voice analysis
. National Criminal Justice.
14
Institute. NCJ Number: 196940.
** Full Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: conduct a study to measure, analyze, and record voice pitch, intensity, and
duration for the analysis of voice from tape recordings for use in lie detection.
Conclusion: the results of the analysis of intensity showed no sign of increasing or
decreasing of voices in intensity during the questioning. However, analysis on the
duration of subjectsâ answers showed a higher detection rate than pitch or intensity, but
it was not applicable in actual cases. From these results, using pitch, intensity, and
duration of voices as a means to detect deception appears slim.
Horvath, Frank. (2002). (Abstract)
Detecting deception: The promise and the realty of voice
stress analysis
. National Criminal Justice Institute. NCJ Number: 196936.
** Full Text See, Polygraph Journal: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: discuss and analyze the major empirical evidence pertaining to the claims made
about voice stress analysis, specifically the assertion that voice stress devices are
effective in lie detection.
Conclusion: findings were that voice stress devices extract from the vocal spectrum a
sub audible microtremor signal that is seen as useful in detecting stress in a speakerâs
voice. It was found that the promise of voice stress analysis in the lie detection field was
not and may never be a reality. The evidence showed that none of the devices were
useful in detecting deception. The reliable evidence that that did exist showed that there
was no induced stress.
Krapohl, D.; Ryan, A.; & Shull, K. (2002). (Abstract)
Voice stress devices and the
detection of lies
. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number: 196933
** Full Text See, Polygraph Journal; Volume: 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Focus: to review what is known about voice stress devices and to what degree voice
stress technology can provide a reliable means for detecting deception.
Conclusion: the general conclusion has been that the accuracy is modest to poor for a
handful of experimental approaches and uniformly poor for those relying on the device.
D. Other States, Government agencies and voice stress analyzers
Currently, the Commonwealth of Virginia only recognizes and approves the use of the
polygraph instrument to detect deception. On this foundation, Mr. Daniele in his comments at
the Roanoke public hearing session made a valid point. He states: (Reference Transcript)
15
âWe trust the fact that state says that it (reference to the polygraph) is a valid,
truth-seeking instrument to be used. If you approve this (reference to voice
stress analyzers) then automatically just by the appearance of it, that everyone is
going to believe that the state, Commonwealth of Virginia, is agreeing that this
is a valid instrumentâ.
Written comment letters (Newby, David) and public hearing sessions (Hughes, David and
Brick, Michael â Richmond session) made note that the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies are using voice stress technology on a regular basis for homeland security and
terrorism investigations. However, the statement received from the American Polygraph
Association, after investigating this claim, states: âNo Department of Defense agency uses any
form of voice stress analysis for investigative purposes.â (Written comment â Baum, Sandi).
The only information that this study was able to verify relates to the recent aviation security
measures signed by President Bush, S.1447 Sec. 109 (7). This authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to take certain measures, including but not limited to using the computer voice
stress analyzer (see Appendix C). It could not be verified if the Secretary of Transportation is
presently utilizing the computer voice stress analyzer with success under this provision.
Recent legislation shows that in January 2003, the State of Illinois recently
rejected
a bill that
would:
Amend the Detection of Deception Examines Act. Allows an examiner who is a
qualified operator of a Computer Voice Stress Analyzer that records voice stress
factors pertinent to the detection of deception to use a Computer Voice Stress
Analyzer in place of the instrument that records the subjectâs cardiovascular,
respiratory, and galvanic skin response patterns. Sets the minimum training
standards for a qualified operator.
Other states that have recently
rejected
similar bills are Texas (1999) and Oklahoma. It appears
that out of the 50 states, there are currently only nine states that
do not recognize or approve
the
use of computer voice analyzers.
* The complete list:
-
Illinois
-
Oklahoma
-
Michigan
-
Texas
-
Vermont
-
Virginia
-
South Carolina
-
Kentucky
16
-
North Dakota
* USA TODAY article (2002)
Some other additional information that was found about other states:
Wisconsin - Does not appear regulated, however, voice stress analyzer is part of the
definition of "lie detector" in the section of the code regarding employment law. § 111.37(1)(b)
West Virginia - While not specifically prohibiting voice stress analyzers the West
Virginia Code seems very much designed (in the education and licensure requirements) to be
geared toward polygraph machines. 42CSR6
Utah - Allows the use of computer stress analyzers
Texas â No information found specifically pertaining to voice stress analyzers, however
the polygraph law seems to be very similar to Virginia.
Tennessee â No information found specifically pertaining to voice stress analyzers,
however the polygraph law requires a polygraph examiner (5) "Polygraph examiner" means
any person who purports to be able to detect deception or verify truth of statements through
instrumentation or by means of a mechanical device) to successfully complete a school approved
by the American Polygraph Association. (Tennessee Code, Title 62, Chapter 27)
Conclusions & Recommendations
A review of the current literature and summarization of the four public hearing sessions and
written comments uncover a continuing polarized debate between the polygraph and voice stress
communities. The conflict arises from the lengthy history and regulation of the polygraph
compared to the mostly unregulated new technology of voice analyzer equipment. There have
been several scientific studies conducted on the polygraph over the years, and while no study
has indicated the polygraph to be 100% accurate, it has still been deemed a reliable instrument
to detect deception when used correctly. On the other hand, there has been no independent
scientific evidence to indicate that the computer voice analyzer is a valid instrument to detect
deception. The only evidence that has been presented and reviewed, to date, consists of
testimonials and other anecdotal evidence.
It is not discounted or overlooked that the computer stress analyzers currently in use, are very
well received by the law enforcement at large in the United States. In spite of this, the
Polygraph Examiners Advisory Board must rely upon scientific data and research available.
17
Because there have been no independent scientific studies conducted on the reliability of the
computer voice analyzer to detect deception, the Board recommends to the Director of the
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation that computer voice analyzer
equipment should not be approved in Virginia at this time.
References
Air Force Research Laboratory. (2000). AFRL study finds voice stress analysis accurately
detects stress [Online]. Available:
http://www.nemesysco.com
AntiPolygraph.org. (2003). (Summaries & Comments)
Polygraph News
. [Online]
Available:
http://antipolygraph.org/news.html
Aviation and Transportation Security Act. S.1447; Sec. 109. (a)(7).
Barland, Gordon. (2002). (Abstract) Use of voice changes in the detection of deception.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number 196942
.
** Full-Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Brenner, M.; Branscomb, H; & Schwartz, G. (2002). (Abstract) Psychological stress
evaluator: Two tests of a vocal measure.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
NCJ Number: 196939.
** Full-Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Cahill, Donald. (1999). Report of voice stress analyzer. Prince William County Police
Department.
âCaptain Bobâ. (2003). Eat stress for breakfast: voice stress analyzer [Online].
Available:
http://www.eatstress.com/voicestress.htm
Center for Labor Education and Research, University of Hawaii. (2003). HRS Chapter
378: Hawaii Employment Practices Act. University of Hawaii, West Oahu. [Online].
Available:
http://homepages.uhwo.hawaii.edu/~clear/HRS378.html
Cestaro, V.L. (1996). A test of the computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) theory of
operation.
Polygraph
: Volume 27, No. 2.
18
Cestaro, V.L. (1996). A comparison between decision accuracy rates obtained using
the polygraph instrument and the computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) in the
absence of real jeopardy.
Polygraph
: Volume 25, No. 1.
Cestero, V.L.; and Dollins, A.B. (1996). An analysis of voice responses for the
detection of deception. Polygraph: Volume 25, No. 1.
Cestaro, V. (2001). A summary of the testimony before the Texas legislature
regarding the reliability and validity of the computer voice stress analyzer [Online].
Available:
http://www.voicestress.org/summary_of_the_testimony.htm
Chandler, Arizona Police Department. (2000) (Memorandum) Chandler Police
Department General Orders: D-21 computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA). (no source
information provided).
Clede. Bill. (1998). Technology, it helps find the truth [Online].
http://www.clede.com/Articles/Police/truth.htm
Department of Defense. (no date given). Executive Summary: Voice stress analysis
(VSA) [Online]. Available:
www.defenselink.mil
Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI). (1996). Voice
stress analysis
position statement
. Online [http://www.cvsa1.com].
Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI). (2001). Research Summary [Online].
Available:
http://www.cvsa1.com
Dobb, Edwin. (no date given). False confessions: scaring suspects to death. Amnesty
Now [Online]. Available:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/false_confessions.html
DoDPI Research Division Staff: Meyerhoof, J., Saviolakis, G., Koenig, M., and Yourick,
D. (2002). Physiological and biochemical measures of stress compared to voice stress
analysis using the computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA)
(Report No. DoDP198-R-0004).
Ft. McClellan, AL: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
Flood, P. (1995). âComputer voice stress analyzer: an introductionâ. The Follow-Up (a
newsletter for California Law Enforcement Investigators), Volume 1, No. 4.
From wire reports. âPolygraph tests do little good, lots of harm, major report saysâ. The
Virginian-Pilot. October 9, 2002.
19
Goodman, J. (2003). âLaw enforcement officials outline legislative wish listâ. Mississippi
News: the Clarion-Ledger. [Online]. Available:
http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0302/04/m04b.html
Haddad, D., Walter, S., Ratley, R., and Smith, M. (2002). Investigation and evaluation of
voice stress analysis technology: Final report.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service:
NCJ Number 193832
Hamilton, J. (no date given). (Paper written by author while attending the School of Law
Enforcement Supervision XII class at the Criminal Justice Institute)
Computer Voice Stress
Analyzer (CVSA)
. Central Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysis [Online].
Available:
http://campus.umr.edu/police/cvsa/cvsamenu.htm
Heisse, Jr., M.D. (1976). Audio stress analysis: a validation and reliability study of the
psychological stress evaluator (PSE). (no source information provided).
Horvath, Frank. (2002). (Abstract) Experimental comparison of the psychological stress
evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception.
National Criminal
Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number: 196941
** Full-Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Horvath, Frank. (2002). (Abstract
) Detecting deception: The promise and the realty of voice
stress analysis
.
National Criminal Justice Institute. NCJ Number: 196936
.
** Full Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Hughes, D. (no date given). (A Rebuttal) Department of Defense Polygraph Instituteâs
voice stress analysis position statement. National Institute for Truth Verification [Online].
Available:
www.NITV1.com
International Association of Chiefs of Police/National Law Enforcement Center. (2002).
Voice stress analysis and the detection of lies.
Policy Review
, Spring/Summer.
Janniro, M.J., and Cestaro, V.L. (1998). Effectiveness of detection of deception
examinations using the computer voice stress analyzer.
Polygraph
: Volume 27, No. 1.
Krapohl, D.; Ryan, A.; & Shull, K. (2002). (Abstract) Voice stress devices and the
detection of lies
.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ Number: 196933
.
** Full Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume: 31, Issue (2). 2002.
Krapohl, D. (no date reported). Tech talk: Voice stress analysis research [Online].
Available:
http://www.polygraph.org/Tech%20Talk.htm
20
Lewis, C. (no date provided). Is this lie detector telling the truth? [Online]. Available:
www.courttv.com
Lynch, Brian; & Henry, Donald. (2002). (Abstract) Validity study of the
psychological stress evaluator.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJ
Number: 196938.
** Full-Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
National Institute for Truth Verification. (2003). CVSA⢠perfects crime-fighting
Technology [Online]. Available:
http://www.cvsa1.com/product/php
National Institute for Truth Verification. (2003). Studies validating voice stress analysis
[Online]. Available:
http://www.cvsa1.com/studies.php
National Institute for Truth Verification. (2003). List of Law Enforcement Agencies that
utilize the CVSA. National Institute for Truth Verification [Online]. Available:
www.NITV1.com
National Institute for Truth Verification. (no date given). Summaries/Testimonials
submitted Detectives who have utilized voice stress analysis on actual cases.
National Institute for Truth Verification [Online]. Available:
www.NITV1.com
National Research Council (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection - Chapter 6.
In
Alternative techniques and technologies
(pp. 154 â 177). Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
Nurenberg, G. (2002). Finding truth in voice. Tech TV Live [Online]. Available:
http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,23102,3378618,00,html
OâConner, T. (no date given). (Lecture Session)
Scientific lie detection
. North Carolina
Wesleyan College.
Pass A Polygraph â CVSA. (2003). What experts say
âŚ
Plain Spoken Publications:
[Online]. Available: http://www.passapolygraph.com/polygraphquotes.html
Raucci, P. (2002). (Guest Lecturer)
West Haven Police Department unveils new technology
at Rotary Club Meeting
. Rotary Club of West Haven [Online]. Available:
http://www.westhavenrotary.org
Robinson, B., & Onion, A. (2002). Polygraph Q & A: lie detector tests remain mostly
unchanged and controversial [Online]. Available:
http://abcnews.com
Shaheen, Michael. (2002). âBenefits of the computer voice stress analyzerâ. Ohio Police
Chief Magazine, Fall.
21
Shipp, T.; Krzysztof, I. (2002). (Abstract) Current evidence for the existence of laryngeal
macrotremor and microtremor.
National Criminal Justice Institute. NCJ Number: 196937.
** Full Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
State of Arkansas. (2003).
Chapter 39 â Polygraph Examiners and Voice Stress Analysis
Examiners
. [ Online]. Available:
http://170.94.58.9/NXT/gateway.dll.ARCode/title20102.htm
State of Florida, Secretary of State. (1974). (Appendix F)
Special hearing report on the
polygraph and psychological stress evaluator
. (no source information provided).
State of Illinois â Ninety Second General Assembly Legislation. (no date given). HB4150.
[Online]. Available:
http://legis.state.il.us/legislation
State of Florida vs. Xavier Richards
. Florida District Court of Appeals â Third District
(2003).
State of South Dakota â Seventy-Eighth Session, Legislative Assembly, 2003. No. HB
1141. [Online] Available:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/bills/HB1141HJU.htm
State of Texas â Seventy-sixth Legislative Assembly, 1999. No. HB 3175. [Online].
Available:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hjrnl/76r/html/day36.htm
State of Wisconsin v. Pail D.Hoppe
. State of Wisconsin, Court of Appeals â District Four
(2001).
Stenbit, John P., Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Memorandum
dated November 5,
2002.
Sullivan, Ben. (1998). âThe truth is out thereâ. Los Angeles Daily News: [Online].
Available:
http://www.telstarone.com/truster_ladn.htm
Suzuki, A.; Watanabe, S.; Taheno, Y.; Kosugi, T.; & Kasuya, T. (2002). (Abstract)
Possibility of detecting deception by voice analysis.
National Criminal Justice Institute. NCJ
Number: 196940.
** Full Text See,
Polygraph
: Volume 31, Issue (2). 2002.
The American Association of Police Polygraphists Board of Directors. (2002). Statement
pertaining to the National Academy of Science report on the use of polygraph [Online].
Available:
http://wordnet.net.aapp/position.htm
The American Association of Police Polygraphists (2003). AAPP position statement
on the use of voice stress analysis [Online]. Available
22
http://wordnet.net.aapp/position.htm
The American Polygraph Association (2003). Statement of the American polygraph
association pertaining to the national academy of sciences (NAS) report on the use of the
polygraph [Online]. Available:
http://www.polygraph.org/APA%20statement%20to%NAS.htm
The American Polygraph Association and The American Association of the Police
Polygraphists. (2002). Detection of deception: Truth vs. myth [Online]. Available:
http://cvsa1.com
The Associated Press. (2002). âPolice increasingly using voice-based lie-detectorâ. USA
Today [Online]. Available:
http://usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/02/11/voice-lie-
detector.htm
The Diogenes Company. (1995-2003). International Society of Stress Analysis (I.S.S.A.)
[Online]. Available:
www.thediogenescompnay.com
The Diogenes Company. (2003). (Brochure) The lantern voice stress analysis system
[Online]. Available:
www.thediogenescompany.com
The Diogenes Company. (2003). (A White Paper) A non-invasive system and method for
detection of deception [Online]. Available:
www.thediogenescompany.com
The Polygraph and Lie Detection National Research Council. (2002). Voice stress analysis.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.nas.edu/nrc
The truth about voice stress technologies. (no date given). [ Online] Available :
http://www.voicestress.org
Timm, H. (PERSEREC). (no date given). (Memorandum to the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense). Assessment of the validity research findings to date pertaining to
voice stress analyzers in detection of deception situations. Department Personnel Security
Research Center (PERSEREC). [Online]. Available:
www.defenselink.mil
Tippett, R. (1994). Comparative analysis study of the CVSA and polygraph. (no
source information provided).
United States v. Scheffer (96-1133). Supreme Court of Virginia. (March 31, 1998).
44M.J. 442, reversed [Online]. Available:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/scheffer.html
23
Webby, Sean. (2001). âPolice use controversial tech tool on suspects: critics sat âvoice
stress analyzersâ are a scamâ. Mercury News [Online]. Available:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/sctop/voice090301.htm
Weibe, D. (no date given). Conclusion of the six month report on the computer voice stress
analyzer prepared for the Saanich, B.C., police department [Online]. Available:
http://www.cvsa.com.au/reports.htm
Weinstein, Donald. (no date given).
Stress, neurendocrines and the CVSA: a discussion
paper
. (no source information provided).
Appendix(s)
Appendix A - Summaries of Written Comments Received
Appendix B - Attendees of the Public Hearing Session(s)
Appendix C â Aviation and Transportation Security Act S.1447
Appendix D - House Bill No. 2812
Appendix E - Senate Bill No. 1296
Appendix A
Name and Affiliation
Summary of Comments
Leslie C. Cash, Jr., Greene County Sheriffâs Office
Supports the use of the CVSA (Computer Voice Stress
Analyzer) instruments in law enforcement investigations.
Reference to the CVSA as a cost effective âtoolâ for
24
conducting investigation interviews. Support for investigative
use only and not for use in pre-employment or Internal Affair
areas.
Leonard G. Cooke, Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services
Reports research from two sources: (1) International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) website and (2) the
National Institute for Justice (NIJ).
The IACP website does not present a position of pro or con
on the use of voice stress technology. The NIJ revealed
various studies that indicate voice stress technology may
work, and others that say they do not. Concludes that these
devices (voice stress analyzers) have not been shown to
differentiate between truth and deception and that most
research has produced ânegative or mixed findingsâ of a
relationship between voice stress and deception.
Jerrauld C. Jones, Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Juvenile Justice
Reports that the Department of Juvenile Justice has never
used computer voice stress analyzers, nor have they
conducted any studies into the use of such devices.
George W. Gibbs
Does not support the use of the voice stress analyzer device.
Reference to several scientific studies conducted by the U.S.
Department of Defense noting an overwhelming conclusion
indicating that the accuracy rate of voice stress analysis in
detecting deception is no better than chance. Reference to
flipping a coin to determine if someone is telling the truth or
not. Admits the polygraph isnât perfect, but certainly better
than flipping a coin. Main concern is not that the voice stress
analyzer would replace the polygraph, but, because the voice
stress analyzer test is quick, easy and can be conducted
without the subjectâs knowledge or consent, that some
officers may elect to trust its results rather than take the time
to have a polygraph exam conducted. Concludes that
shortcuts of this nature do not serve the public interest and
that the scientific research has proven that voice stress does
not work.
Donald A. Weinstein, American Polygraph
Association
Support against the use of voice stress technology in Virginia.
Attached several documents from studies conducted on the
validity and utility of the voice stress technology for review.
The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in their Voice
Stress Analysis Position Statement (September 11, 1996)
25
concluded that they had found no credible evidence in
information furnished by the manufacturers, the scientific
literature, or in their own research, that voice stress analysis is
an effective investigative tool for determining deception.
David Newby, City of Chesapeake Office of the
Sheriff
Support for the use of the voice stress technology to aid law
enforcement to do its job better. Stresses the use of the
voice stress technology as a tool to better direct resources to
meet the needs of law enforcement. Discussion on the
studies that have been done to test the credibility of this
technology to conclude that the testing of this technology in a
laboratory setting without real jeopardy would not produce
realistic results. States that the Department of Defense and
other federal agencies are using voice stress technology on a
regular basis for homeland security and terrorism
investigation. Specifically, the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act Sec. 109 (a) In General â The Secretary of
Transportation for Security may take the following actions:
(7) Provide for the use of voice stress analysis, biometric, or
other technologies to prevent a person who might pose a
danger to air safety or security from boarding the aircraft of
an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or
interstate air transportation.
Sandi Baum, Virginia Beach Police Department
Strong support against the use of voice stress technology in
Virginia. Main themes: (1) It has not been proven to be an
accurate detector of deception (makes references to six
studies published in the American Polygraph Association
2002 Volume 31, Number 2); (2) The voice stress
technology can be used without the examineeâs awareness
making compliance with consent regulations such as those the
Board has developed for polygraph, easy to subvert, placing
the public at greater risk; (3) the American Polygraph
Association has investigated the claim that the government is
using the voice stress technology on its war on terrorism and
issued this statement, âNo department of defense agency uses
any form of voice stress analysis for investigative purposes.â
Donald L. Cahill, Prince William County Police
Department
Support for the use of voice stress technology as a âtoolâ
which will help guide the investigation in the proper direction.
Discussion on the cost effectiveness of the instrument to
enhance the ability of law enforcement staff without the
burden of excessive added costs. Minimum standards for
training programs are suggested as well as the examination
26
requirements and the Boardâs role as an oversight board.
William I. Ames, Jr., The Diogenes Company
Support for the use of voice stress analysis system as an
instrument that records physiological changes pertinent to the
determination of truthfulness or the verification of the truth of
statements in Virginia. Discussion of approval sought
regarding their training and certification program that includes
a continuing education. Make claim that their systems are
operating in 15 countries and within US Federal agencies.
â˘
Provided an ISSA (International Society of Stress
Analysis) Fact Sheet.
â˘
Provided a Diogenes Brochure
â˘
Provided a Diogenes written report
The paper addresses an emerging technology for a
tool for security and law enforcement applications.
Claim that voice stress analysis are methodologies for
revealing physiological indicators of differences in the
stress level of the human subject.
â˘
Provided a Prince William County Virginia report on
VSA
â˘
Provided a course of instruction presentation
brochure
â˘
And a state of Florida special hearing report
National Institute for Truth Verification
â˘
Provided âtestimonialsâ submitted by detectives
involved in actual cases.
â˘
Provided a list of 131 Florida Law Enforcement
Agencies that Utilize the CVSA⢠(Computer Voice
Stress Analyzer).
â˘
Provided a list of 55 North Carolina Law
Enforcement Agencies that Utilize the CVSAâ˘.
â˘
Provided a list of Major Law Enforcement Agencies
that utilize the instrument, as noted, âBy prior
agreement federal agencies are not listedâ.
â˘
Provided a list of 20 Maryland Law Enforcement
Agencies that Utilize the CVSAâ˘
â˘
Provided An Executive Summary regarding the
Computer Voice Stress Analyzerâ˘.
â˘
Provided a comparative cost of the Computer Voice
Stress Analyzer⢠vs. the polygraph.
â˘
Announcement for the fourth quarter, certified
examiners courses to be held nationwide.
â˘
Article posted in the Washington Times (Tuesday,
27
July 22, 2003 â Author, Rowan Scarborough) titled:
Saddamâs loyalists thwart polygraph tests
.
â˘
Present argument that states, âUnlike the old
polygraph, the CVSA⢠can analyze both telephonic
transmissions as well as recorded conversations to
accurately detect deception.â
â˘
S. 1447 The Aviation and Transportation Security
Act as enacted by the U.S. Congress â Sec. 109.
Enhanced Security Measures, (7) Provide for the use
of voice stress analysis, biometric, or other
technologies to prevent a person who might pose a
danger to air safety or security from boarding the
aircraft of an air carrier or foreign air carrier in the air
transportation or intrastate air transportation.
â˘
Article titled, âU.S. Department of Defense Begins
Deployment of the CVSAâ˘â. Argument presented
states that:
The U.S. Department of Defense has begun
the deployment of the Computer Voice
Stress Analyzer⢠throughout the
Intelligence community. Although
virtually the entire U.S. law enforcement
community (nearly 1,400), including most
major metropolitan departments, has
already switched to the CVSA⢠, the
DoD (Department of Defense) had no
begun deployment of the system due to a
negative report issued by the DoD
Polygraph Institute. In the report,
authored by a DoD Polygraph researcher,
Dr. Victor Cestaro, it was reported that
after testing the system, the accuracy rate
of the CVSA was below 50% in detecting
deception.
Bernard H. Levin
Support against the use of voice stress technology as a device
to determine deception. Comments were not intended to be
comprehensive, but mainly intended to address the question
of whether the computer voice stress analyzer can be justified
on the basis of available scientific evidence.
28
-
Appendix B
Attendees and Speakers of the Public Hearing Session(s):
*
Denotes a Speaker
(1)
Roanoke, Virginia â August 19, 2003
Raynard Jackson, Chairman of the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation
Dana Martin, Board Member
Louise F. Ware, Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation
Sandra W. Ryals, Chief Deputy
Eric Olson, Executive Director
Kimberly L. Freiberger, Regulatory Boards Administrator
* L. C. Cash
* Brian Roberts
* Karl Holzbach
* Rick Daniele
* George McMillan
Rodney Davis
Anthony Ezell
Tim Sanok
George Gibbs
Denise Likens
(2)
Chesapeake, Virginia â August 28, 2003
Raynard Jackson, Chairman of the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation
Thomas J. Meany, Jr., Board Member
Louise F. Ware, Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation
Sandra W. Ryals, Chief Deputy
Eric Olson, Executive Director
Kimberly L. Freiberger, Regulatory Boards Administrator
* Brian Roberts
* Rick Daniele
* Sandi Baum
29
* Karl Holzbach
* David Newby
* Jim OâSullivan
* James Eckenrode
* Irby Turnbull
* D. L. Callahan
* Delegate John Cosgrove
* Senator Blevins
(3) Arlington, Virginia â October 1, 2003
Raynard Jackson, Chairman of the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation
Julie Clifford, Board Member
Louise F. Ware, Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation
Sandra W. Ryals, Chief Deputy
Eric Olson, Executive Director
Kimberly L. Freiberger, Regulatory Boards Administrator
* Joe Hughes
* Victor L. Cestaro
* Jim OâSullivan
(4) Richmond, Virginia â October 7, 2003
Raynard Jackson, Chairman of the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation
Julie Clifford, Board Member
Susan Ferguson, Board Member
Maxime Frias, Board Member
Dana Martin, Board Member
Leroy Pfeiffer, Board Member
Louise F. Ware, Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation
Sandra W. Ryals, Chief Deputy
Eric Olson, Executive Director
Kimberly L. Freiberger, Regulatory Boards Administrator
Jim OâSullivan
Jennifer V. Luckritz
* Karl Holzbach
* David Newby
30
* David A. Hughes
* Kent Willis
* Otis Whitaker
* Joe Hughes
G. Brain Michaels
A. W. Omohundro
* James Eckenrode
* Michael D. Brick
* Brain Roberts
Appendix C â Aviation and Transportation Security Act S.1447
From the Congressional Records
[DOCID: f:publ071.107]
[[Page 115 STAT. 597]]
Public Law 107-71
107th Congress
An Act
To improve aviation security, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 19,
2001 - [S. 1447]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Aviation and Transportation
Security Act.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. <<NOTE: 49 USC 40101 note.>>
This Act may be cited as the ``Aviation and Transportation Security
Act''.
TITLE I--AVIATION SECURITY
SEC. 101. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 114. Transportation Security Administration
31
``(a) In General.--The Transportation Security Administration shall
be an administration of the Department of Transportation.
``(b) Under Secretary.--
``(1) Appointment.--The head of the Administration shall be
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. The Under
Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
``(2) Qualifications.--The Under Secretary must--
``(A) be a citizen of the United States; and
``(B) have experience in a field directly related to
transportation or security.
``(3) Term.--The term of office of an individual appointed
as the Under Secretary shall be 5 years.
``(c) Limitation on Ownership of Stocks and Bonds.--The Under
Secretary may not own stock in or bonds of a transportation or security
enterprise or an enterprise that makes equipment that could be used for
security purposes.
``(d) Functions.--The Under Secretary shall be responsible for
security in all modes of transportation, including--
``(1) carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation
security, and related research and development activities; and
``(2) security responsibilities over other modes of
transportation that are exercised by the Department of
Transportation.
``(e) Screening Operations.--The Under Secretary shall--
``(1) be responsible for day-to-day Federal security
screening operations for passenger air transportation and
intrastate air transportation under sections 44901 and 44935;
[[Page 115 STAT. 598]]
``(2) develop standards for the hiring and retention of
security screening personnel;
``(3) train and test security screening personnel; and
``(4) be responsible for hiring and training personnel to
provide security screening at all airports in the United States
where screening is required under section 44901, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies and departments.
``(f) Additional Duties and Powers.--In addition to carrying out the
functions specified in subsections (d) and (e), the Under Secretary
shall--
``(1) receive, assess, and distribute intelligence
information related to transportation security;
``(2) assess threats to transportation;
``(3) develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with threats to transportation security;
``(4) make other plans related to transportation security,
32
including coordinating countermeasures with appropriate
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United
States Government;
``(5) serve as the primary liaison for transportation
security to the intelligence and law enforcement communities;
``(6) on a day-to-day basis, manage and provide operational
guidance to the field security resources of the Administration,
including Federal Security Managers as provided by section
44933;
``(7) enforce security-related regulations and requirements;
``(8) identify and undertake research and development
activities necessary to enhance transportation security;
``(9) inspect, maintain, and test security facilities,
equipment, and systems;
``(10) ensure the adequacy of security measures for the
transportation of cargo;
``(11) oversee the implementation, and ensure the adequacy,
of security measures at airports and other transportation
facilities;
``(12) require background checks for airport security
screening personnel, individuals with access to secure areas
of airports, and other transportation security personnel;
``(13) work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions or
activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
``(14) work with the International Civil Aviation
Organization and appropriate aeronautic authorities of foreign
governments under section 44907 to address security concerns on
passenger flights by foreign air carriers in foreign air
transportation; and
``(15) carry out such other duties, and exercise such other
powers, relating to transportation security as the Under
Secretary considers appropriate, to the extent authorized by
law.
``(g) National Emergency Responsibilities.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the direction and control of
the Secretary, the Under Secretary, during a national emergency,
shall have the following responsibilities:
[[Page 115 STAT. 599]]
``(A) To coordinate domestic transportation,
including aviation, rail, and other surface
transportation, and maritime transportation (including
port security).
``(B) To coordinate and oversee the transportation-
related responsibilities of other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government other than the
Department of Defense and the military departments.
33
``(C) To coordinate and provide notice to other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and
appropriate agencies of State and local governments,
including departments and agencies for transportation,
law enforcement, and border control, about threats to
transportation.
``(D) To carry out such other duties, and exercise
such other powers, relating to transportation during a
national emergency as the Secretary shall prescribe.
``(2) Authority of other departments and agencies.--The
authority of the Under Secretary under this subsection shall not
supersede the authority of any other department or agency of the
Federal Government under law with respect to transportation or
transportation-related matters, whether or not during a national
emergency.
``(3) Circumstances.--The Secretary shall prescribe the
circumstances constituting a national emergency for purposes of
this subsection.
Appendix D - House Bill No. 2812
CHAPTER 545
An Act to amend and reenact § 54.1-1805 of the Code of Virginia, relating to professions and
occupations; regulation of polygraph examiners.
[H 2812]
Approved March 18, 2003
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That §
54.1-1805
of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§
54.1-1805
. Instruments to be used; approval of other instruments by Director.
A.
Each examiner shall use an instrument which
that
records permanently and simultaneously the
subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument may
record additional physiological changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness.
B. In addition, the Director may approve the use of other instruments that record physiological
changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness or the verification of the truth of
statements, including a computer voice stress analyzer, by examiners licensed under this chapter
under such conditions as determined by the Director. Such conditions shall include a provision
requiring the examiner, prior to the use of such instrument, to (i) complete a Director-approved
training course on its operation and (ii) be certified by the manufacturer on the use of such
instrument. However, no instrument approved pursuant to this subsection shall be used by a
34
police department in conducting a background investigation of an applicant for employment as a
police officer or in administrative investigations involving a police officer.
2. That the provisions of this act shall expire on July 1, 2005.
Appendix E - Senate Bill No. 1296
CHAPTER 554
An Act to amend and reenact § 54.1-1805 of the Code of Virginia, relating to professions and
occupations; regulation of polygraph examiners.
[S 1296]
Approved March 18, 2003
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That §
54.1-1805
of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§
54.1-1805
. Instruments to be used; approval of other instruments by Director.
A.
Each examiner shall use an instrument which
that
records permanently and simultaneously the
subject's cardiovascular and respiratory patterns as minimum standards, but such an instrument may
record additional physiological changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness.
B. In addition, the Director may approve the use of other instruments that record physiological
changes pertinent to the determination of truthfulness or the verification of the truth of
statements, including a computer voice stress analyzer, by examiners licensed under this chapter
under such conditions as determined by the Director. Such conditions shall include a provision
requiring the examiner, prior to the use of such instrument, to (i) complete a Director-approved
training course on its operation and (ii) be certified by the manufacturer on the use of such
instrument. However, no instrument approved pursuant to this subsection shall be used by a
police department in conducting a background investigation of an applicant for employment as a
police officer or in administrative investigations involving a police officer.
2. That the provisions of this act shall expire on July 1, 2005.
35