Lawmakers argue that lie detector tests are ineffective for victims of sexual assault

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — A new bill will be debated on Capitol Hill next year that would prevent police from requiring a possible sexual assault victim to take a lie detector test. However, even the bill’s sponsor doesn’t go far enough. She would prefer that polygraph tests never be administered to people who report sexual assault, even if the alleged victim requests it.

This all stems from a case where a man reported his therapist Scott Owen for sexual assault and took a lie detector test, which revealed he wasn’t telling the truth. Rep. Angela Romero says she never wants this to happen to victims of sexual assault again.

Owen was arrested in November 2023 after an hours-long standoff with police in Thistle. He was charged on suspicion of sodomy and object rape, and investigators said they spoke to 12 different victims. Owen reportedly told his patients that sexual touching and kissing were part of the therapy.

MORE: Lawmakers push to ban lie detector tests for sexual assault victims

Years before Owen was arrested, a man reported him to the Division of Professional Licensing. District 25 Representative Angela Romero says the man took a polygraph test and failed, although she says he was telling the truth.

She believes this damaged the investigation into Owen.

During a September Interim Committee on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice meeting, Romero said, “This person thought that with this lie detector test he would prove that this had happened to him.”

Romero says that not only are polygraph results inadmissible in court, but the test also makes the victim relive what she went through. That’s why she would prefer that they never be offered as an option.

She tells KUTV, “Some people will disagree with me on this, but especially when it comes to victims of sexual assault, we don’t want to re-traumatize them.”

How is it that an honest person can look like they’re on a lie detector? There are several reasons why this could happen.

Brian Morris is a licensed polygraph examiner who has tested victims in the past. He says confusion could distort the results of a polygraph. That’s why they conduct a one-hour preliminary discussion before the exam.

“If they’re not completely confident in the answers they’re giving you, or if they’re having trouble with their memory and things related to that, that can certainly have an impact on whether they’re 100 percent confident about you doing this test are truthful or not,” says Morris.

Examiners measure heart rate, blood volume, breathing rate and even how strongly your sweat glands respond to questions.

He says: “If I have someone who is young, in their 20s and physically fit, I’ll probably see some good data that I’ll see.” If I have someone in their 50s who is on blood medication and a number of other health issues If you have problems, that could certainly impact the quality of the data.”

Morris says that even if someone is distracted by something unrelated to the questions, they could still give the impression that they are being deceptive. For example, he questioned a man about missing money. It turned out that this man had a completely different problem.

Morris says, “He informed me that the person he was having an affair with would go to his house and when he wasn’t home that person would talk to his wife.”

This man “solved” his problem and returned a few days later to take the exam.

“He passed without a problem,” Morris said.

Do failed lie detectors significantly affect an investigation? Some lawmakers don’t think so. District 6 Representative Matthew Gwynn also works in law enforcement. He says these tests are not given to victims very often and usually only when investigators have no physical evidence to prove what happened.

“Ultimately, these are cases that involve the testimony of one person against another. “Law enforcement needs to do what they can to sort of verify these testimonies and confirm or invalidate what they have received,” Gwynn said.

If investigators have no evidence and the victim fails the test, Gwynn believes that nothing has changed at all in the investigation. You still have no evidence. Still, Gwynn says that if the victim specifically requests an examination, they should have the opportunity to participate.

He says: “It still provides investigators with an opportunity to gather valuable information that they can then independently validate or refute. “Once they can do that, that becomes admissible in court.”

Gwynn says he fully supports Romero’s bill as it stands. This means that the police cannot require a victim to take a lie detector. However, Romero says she will continue to try to pass a law in the future that would prohibit police from ever conducting these investigations on people who report sexual assaults.