As a retired LE officer/sergeant/investigator of 35 yrs and 23 years as a CVSA examiner, I have been exposed to this type of analysis. I have worked with both polygraphers and CVSA examiners. While both have merits, I can tell you my experience now is that I believe strongly that the advantages of the CVSA are distinct and clear. I worked a homicide detail for nine yrs. With the use of the CVSA, I obtained admissions and confessions, cleared people of wrongdoing, and verified statements from individuals. I have also used the CVSA to assist me in solving two cold case homicides, one 22yrs old and one 2 yrs old. In retirement, I am still conducting CVSA's on criminal cases and pre-employments.

While both systems are dependent on the skill and the method of questioning of the investigator, it remains that polygraphs still can have an inconclusive reading while comparatively, that is not the case with the CVSA. The CVSA always has a final analysis of deception indicated or no deception indicated. CVSA does not have inconclusive.

The CVSA can test people on medication, drugs and alcohol without complications. The CVSA readings have been accurate, and they can pinpoint the responses to a greater degree with both criminal and pre-employment investigations. I think everyone would agree that the polygraph and CVSA are as good as the examiner.

I believe that the CVSA is an ideal method even due to strongly thinking traditional polygraphers, and we still have a very strong case for being represented. There is no reason we need to separate the polygraph and CVSA. In fact, I would encourage the Department of Occupational Regulation to allow both polygraph and CVSA and then learn from the results and make a determination so see what is working.

I think the advantages of the CVSA instrument, if you compare them side by side, would be clear. This is not to demean or discredit the long tradition of polygraph. For training purposes, the training requirements for a polygraph are much more restrictive and expensive compared to the CVSA. It takes about three months of training for the polygraph vs five days (52) hours for the CVSA. In these days this is particularly implacable when staffing levels are so compromised and you can train more investigators for the same amount of money.

Polygraph associations have made it clear in the past that the polygraph is the established instrument and mechanism that is used by LE. Breaking tradition and changing is always difficult, but I think the CVSA has real standing in the LE communities and has proven itself over the course of 35 years. LE agencies throughout the US that have converted to the CVSA from the polygraph can provide direct feedback with positive results in both criminal and pre-employment investigations.

No doubt that both the polygraph and CVSA are proven credible methods of examining truthfulness or gaining investigative leads in a case, but I am still a strong proponent of the CVSA standing alongside of the polygraph. In my vast experience training CVSA examiners, the reception I have gotten from agencies that have transitioned to the CVSA has been overwhelmingly positive. There are even agencies that use both polygraph and CVSA in the same department. We are a culture of tradition in LE, but we still must improve with the times as we advance methods of examination. I am a strong proponent that this should be considered. This is not an effort to say that the polygraph is an obsolete tool, but I believe the CVSA stands equally or stronger in comparison.