Arkansas (Ark. Code § 12-12-106)
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other government officials in Arkansas are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Victim refusal of such an examination cannot prevent investigation, charging, or prosecution of the sexual offense.
California (Penal Code § 637.4)
State and local government agencies and their employees in California are barred from requesting or requiring victims of sexual offenses involving force, violence, duress, menace, or great bodily harm to undergo examination using a polygraph as a condition of proceeding with filing charges against the alleged perpetrator. If this code is violated, the victim can sue the violator for damages.
Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-3-407.5)
Law enforcement agencies in Colorado are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as the only condition of proceeding with case investigation. Such examinations can only be performed with the victim’s written informed consent. The victim must be provided with information in writing about his or her right to refuse the examination, and information about how such examinations could be used.
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86 (j))
Members of municipal police departments, the state police, or criminal justice devisions in Connecticut are barred from requesting or requiring victims of sexual assault to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device.
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other government officials in Florida are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Victim refusal of such an examination cannot prevent investigation, charging, or prosecution of the sexual offense
Illinois (725 ILCS 200/1)
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other officials in Illinois are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution.
Indiana (Ind. Code § 35-37-4.5)
Law enforcement officers in Indiana are barred from requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph device as the sole condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution. Tests may be administered at the victim’s request. This code does not apply to voice stress analysis tests.
Iowa (Iowa Code 915.44) (search 915.44)
Criminal and juvenile justice agencies in Iowa are barred from requiring victims or witnesses of sexual assault crimes to undergo examination using a polygraph or similar device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Agencies that want to perform such an examination must inform the person to be tested that their participation is voluntary, that the results are not admissible in court, and that their participation or nonparticipation will not be the sole condition for investigation. If the person that the agency wishes to test declines the test, the agency must inform the person in writing of their reasons to not continue investigation if the victim requests explanation.
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other government officials in Kansas are barred from requesting or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution.
In Kentucky, polygraph tests may not be performed to verify that a crime has occurred.Victims may only be examined if the suspect has passed, declined, or been found unsuitable to take a polygraph exam. Before the exam, the officer investigating the crime must provide a document listing the investigative tactics already used and stating that the victim has not been told that polygraph testing is a condition of case progression. This document must not state whether the victim is a “typical” victim. Before examination, the victim must be informed of his/her right to refuse, to have an advocate watch from another room via a two-way mirror or closed-circuit camera, and to end the test at any time. The victim’s consent must be obtained in writing. The polygraph examination must be videotaped and audio-recorded, and the examiner may not ask questions about the victim’s sexual history.
Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws § 776.21)
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other government officials in Michigan are barred from requesting or ordering victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device. Law enforcement officers are not permitted to inform victims about the option of taking such a test unless the victim inquires about it or the person accused of the crime has voluntarily taken a polygraph test and passed. If the victim requests that the person she is accusing take a polygraph exam, the accused will be given an exam.
Note: According to People vs. Ray 431 M 260 (1988), polygraph evidence is admissible in court if it is obtained through voluntary participation and there is indication that it reliable.
Minnesota (Min. Stat.§ 611A.26)
Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in Minnesota are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution unless the victim has been referred to and had the chance to consult with a sexual assault counselor and has given written, informed consent. To give informed consent, the victim must be told that the polygraph is being administered at the victim’s request and is voluntary, that the law enforcement officer cannot ask or require the victim to take the test, that the results are not admissible in court, and that the victim can refuse the exam without affecting case progression.
Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.224)
Law enforcement agency employees, attorneys, officers of the peace, and government officials in Missouri are barred from requesting or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation.
Nebraska(Neb. Rev. Stat § 29-216)
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and government officials in Nebraska are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation.
New Mexico (N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-17.1)
Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and government officials in New Mexico are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution.
New York (N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.45)
Law enforcement agency employees, district attorneys, and police officers in New York are barred from requesting or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or a psychological stress evaluator test.
North Carolina (N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-831.1)
Criminal and juvenile justice agencies in North Carolina are barred from requiring victims or witnesses of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. If an agency wants to administer such an examination, they must inform the person to be tested that the examination is voluntary, that the results of the examination are not admissible in court, and that taking or refusing the examination will not be the sole factor affecting whether the case is investigated or not. If the person refuses the examination and the agency decides not to pursue the investigation, the agency (upon request) must provide the person a written list of the reasons why the agency made this decision.
Officers of the peace, prosecutors, and other public officials in Ohio are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling device as a condition of proceeding with case investigation.
Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.705)
Law enforcement officers, district attorneys, investigators, and the employees of these officials in Oregon are barred from requiring victims of certain sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph as a condition of filing charges.
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico has a VAWA-compliant statute.
Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-3-123)
Law enforcement officers in Tennessee are barred from requiring victims of certain sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling devices as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Officers who violate this law will be subjected to discipline.
Peace officers and district attorneys in Texas are barred from requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph test. If an officer or attorney wishes to administer such a test, the officer must inform the victim that the test is not mandatory and that the investigation cannot be discontinued solely because the victim refuses the examination or because of the polygraph results. The victim must be provided this information in writing and sign a statement indicating comprehension of the material to proceed with the examination.
Virginia (Va. Code § 19.2-9.1)
Law enforcement officers, district attorneys, and other government officials in Virginia are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling devices as a condition of proceeding with case investigation, charging, or prosecution. If an official wishes to administer such a test, the official must inform the victim that the test is voluntary, the results are not admissible as evidence in court, and that the case will not be continued solely because the victim decides to submit to the examination .
Washington (Rev. Code of Wa. § 10.58.038)
Law enforcement officers, attorneys, and other government officials in Washington are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph or other truth-telling devices as a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Victim refusal to submit to such a test cannot be the sole factor ceasing case investigation, charging, or prosecution.
West Virginia (W. V. Code § 62-6-8)
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors in West Virginia are barred from asking or requiring victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a polygraph examination a condition of proceeding with case investigation. Government officials are not permitted to refuse to proceed with the case because the victim refuses to take such an examination.
Law enforcement officers in Wisconsin are barred from requesting, suggesting, or ordering victims of sexual offenses to undergo examination using a truth-telling device. They may also not provide the victim with information about truth-telling devices unless it is requested by the victim. While district attorneys also may not order a victim to undergo examination using a truth-telling device, they may suggest or request that the victim undergo such a test if they provide the victim with notice and an explanation of the victim’s rights to refuse the test.