*1 579 In concerning his to rob. intent statement had Discharge such statement he said a
several others In the Matter in its tape, taken Whether V. been made. Robert FAIRBANKS. exculpatory matter contained entirety, CITY, Iowa, Appellant, SIOUX CITY OF might have certainly it questionable; but ex- information for cross provided helpful v.
amination at trial. FAIRBANKS, Appellee. V. Robert attorney offered the county The assistant No. 62968. the trial tape counsel before to defendant’s Supreme Court of Iowa. began again after Bebensee’s direct Neither completed. had been 23, Jan. Now claims accepted. offer defendant was suppressed exculpatory evidence. the State divulge ex duty has State request. Failure
culpatory information do to a new may so entitle defendant 1, 15(Iowa King,
trial. v. 256 N.W.2d State Rees,
1977); v. Van 246 N.W.2d State Hummell, (Iowa 1976); State v. (Iowa 1975);
N.W.2d 80-81 State 1974);
Peterson, (Iowa 219 N.W.2d Houston, 45-16
State
(Iowa 1973); Aossey, 201 N.W.2d State 1972). (Iowa duty did not in
The State violate tape offered the to defendant
this case. It complains
twice. now because Defendant was
he told what in it. State was not obligation no to evaluate the statement
has perhaps
for defendant. Indeed the State required offering
did than was of it more request. defendant without tape to information, volunteering the State following suggestion Aossey, our repeat and we
N.W.2d at advice exculpa suppression
here. There no
tory Defendant’s claim evidence.
contrary groundless. any of the
We find no reversible error in raised, judgment is affirmed.
issues and the
AFFIRMED. *2 Abshier, City L. Atty.,
James and Patrick Nugent, City Atty., City, J. Asst. Sioux for appellant. McCormick,
Patrick C. and Sioux Conley Conley, Conley Raymond W. & Crawford, Moines, appellee. for Des LeGRAND, J., by Considered P. and UHLENHOPP, REES, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.
REES, Justice. by City This is of Sioux appeal (hereinafter ruling City City) from the and reinstating district court judgment of the plaintiff Robert V. Fairbanks to City. Auto I with the Fair- Mechanic discharged refusing had banks been regard- submit tires from the ing disappearance four garage where he was City’s maintenance employed. discharge His City by affirmed a divided Civil Sioux from Appeal Commission. Service Commission’s decision dis- 400.27, pursuant trict court The Code 15, 1978, court on December district ruling holding and judgment,
entered its taking of the examina- relationship bore no to the advance- public service improvement ment or improper. The capricious and was and decision court therefore overruled the The City the Civil Commission. Service timely We af- appeal took this court. firm. po- by city observed two
Fairbanks was lice officers in an isolated area of com- co-employee munity company of a approxi- after had left at they soon work 27, 1978. In mately p. 11:40 m. on October open by automobile owned trunk of the by co-employee occupied and Fairbanks, automo- were several owner they tires. what were bile When asked go- responded they were doing, Fairbanks ing to sell tires. III. Fairbanks was dismissed investigation revealed that on the
Subsequent description were similar (alleged four tires dual misconduct in- mainte- inventory missing from the tires) in the volvement theft of Randolph, director garage. Mr. Mike nance follow supe- the direct order of a Depart- Public Service City the Sioux rior, Randolph, supervisor. Mr. *3 and, ment, following a met with Fairbanks Civil Commission found insufficient Service which questions of to Fairbanks series in the it to evidence record before that Fairbanks volun- responsive, requested agree. justify Fairbanks’ dismissal. We polygraph examination tarily submit to a There is no that Fairbanks will- indication involvement with the regarding possible his tires; theft of fully participated in the the of place tires from his disappearance of the proof as nor was definite such serial num- declined, Randolph After Fairbanks work. presented or other identification that bers polygraph him to take a examina- ordered missing ga- tires the maintenance the from to do so and informed him that refusal tion compan- those Fairbanks’ rage by were sold Following discharge. result in his would presented night. ion that The sole issue refusal, discharged for Fairbanks refusal to submit to a whether-Fairbanks’ alternative reasons of misconduct the upon the of a polygraph examination order to direct order to submit disobedience of a permissible supervisory employee is a basis the appeal, On polygraph examination. employment sec- for termination of under that concluded Civil Service Commission (which that tion 400.19 states disobedience support existed to sufficient evidence may justify dismissal civil of an order of a dismissal. and affirmed the latter employee). service addressing of I. the merits Before that, dispute, pursuant note to this we first Millsap Rap the cases of v. Cedar In 400.27, 1977, The Code this action Commission, 679, ids 249 N.W.2d Service as an de to the district court was tried novo (Iowa 1977) and Klein v. Civil 687 Service de review is also equitable action. Our Commission, 1147, 1156, 260 Iowa 152 give weight due to the and we will novo 195, (1967), we set 200 forth N.W.2d findings although of fact we court’s district general suspension standard that a or dis Millsap v. Cedar by are not bound them. pursuant section 400.19 must be missal to Commission, 249 Rapids Civil Service public to the for conduct detrimental ser 679, (Iowa 1977). Iowa 683 whether Fair vice. We must determine R.App.P. 4. polygraph refusal to take the exami banks’ arguing ques In to II. addition public ser nation was detrimental erred in as to whether the trial court tion it was We conclude that not vice. concluding poly that take affirm the trial court. was not detrimental graph examination g., cited e. Fichera by The cases service, parties ap public both to this Board, Cal.App.2d 217 v. State Personnel issue as have briefed the constitutional peal 613, 32 Cal.Rptr. (1963); Coursey; Roux 159 polygraph whether Department, 223 New Orleans Police compelled in the face of could have been denied, (La.Ct. App.), cert. 254 So.2d 905 of right of Fifth assertion Amendment cert, 815, (La.1969), 227 de La. So.2d 148 Our examina against self-incrimination. 1236, 1008, 90 397 25 L.Ed.2d nied U.S. S.Ct. record, tran particularly of the (1970); policemen or all either 421 involved meeting Randolph, script with unique law-ori- and focused on the firemen simply declined discloses Fairbanks hold our soci- ented such officers advance polygraph test and did not take Board, 170 Frazee ety, see v. Civil Service refusing. Thus basis for any constitutional 943, 333, 335-36, (1959), P.2d 945 338 Cal.2d presented. See no constitutional issue paramilitary as the character as well Fire and Police Com Coursey v. Board of acknowledged departments, which we missioners, 31, 41, those Ill.App.2d 234 N.E.2d 90 Klein, at 260 152 N.W.2d Iowa at (1967). 343 582 view, (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 654 permitted So.2d jurisdictions have
200. Not all 1964). Molino results ex- ground. While the See termination on value, Safety, see 3A 154 Conn. amination are of some J. Board Public (1966); DeVito Civil Service Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common A.2d 805 1970), A.2d 161 Commission, (Chadbourn po- Pa. Law 999 rev. § DeVito, holding was based (1961). resulting implication tential error and any applicable stat- the nonexistence for con- of the innocent remain authority to regulation granting re- judicial or of the ute tinued distrust the lack of examination and establishes quire such an such time as scientific data until reliability of the lie are proof present, the scientific At we most reliability. mechanism, at taking Pa. required detector hesitant allow grounds, with govern- We find these implicit A.2d condition of a test be an modification, compelling in the matter employment. some ment *4 us here. before that, hold authoriza- specific We absent being or such a tion notice of examination was not dismissal employment, requiring condition of submis- upon questions to his failure answer based is not polygraph to a suf- sion or involve regarding his conduct work public service as ficiently related to the to missing with tires. The record ment the coopera- the of an otherwise make refusal questions put to him he answer discloses did employee tive to submit to such examina- supervisor. employment His by his a basis dismissal under section 400.- for refusing polygraph to a for take terminated affirm the The Code. We therefore while, requestioned. being presumably, test court. trial for such we find authorization Nowhere do and, more im requirement or condition a AFFIRMED. appear does not portantly, such a condition description of an Auto the work within LeGRAND, J., concurs. City I of ei Mechanic for the Sioux McCORMICK, JJ., UHLENHOPP and implication. govern A byor explicitly ther specially. concur may reasonably expected be employee ment concerning his work-re questions to answer HARRIS, J., in concurs result. competence to continue conduct or his lated UHLENHOPP, spe- (concurring Justice requirement to A take employment. in his cially). itself, examination, of polygraph in and a I the view it is that As understand court’s integrally so related to the as not sufficiently being employ polygraph test is not work-re- permit a condition of pre- or functions of a mechanic to proper authorization lated ment absent his refusal to take such test employee. so render employment notice for civil service dismissal under the holding, specifically policemen we omit and statute, 400.19, The 1979. The legal nature Code firemen due to the distinctive police- does and and duties of such court not include firemen departments of those ruling. men in its officers. polygraph This court holds that test-re- reliability
The limited scientific Scholnick, sufficiently have shown be sults not been process, see Scientific polygraph in in Analy to be admissible evidence court An reliable Theory and Evidence: Scientific Conner, objection. Detection, (1961), over Lie 70 Yale L.J. 694 State sis of (Iowa 1976). Literature on strictures N.W.2d place caused this court has subject holding. g., that E. admissibility supports evi upon polygraphic Craver, Conners, See, Inquisitorial Process Private g., The dence. e. State also, (1977). (Iowa 1977); Employment, 63 Cornell L.Rev. see 457-59 being so, rest simply This I would Commission Swope v. Florida Industrial re- present decision on undemonstrated Unemployment Compensation Board Re not, tests, and hold whether willed or is to liability polygraph spirit evoke the be employees discharged history Amendment.”); cannot and of the Fifth civil service Hermann, I take tests. would hold Privacy, Prospective Em- for question abeyance Testing: effect of ployee, Employment .in prior agreements to take tests. Polygraph Personality Need to Restrict Testing, (1971). 47 Wash.L.Rev. instead “work related” Applying ba- sis, does, subjects not only the court as McCORMICK, J., joins special con- policemen also a number of firemen and but currence. employees enforceable demands for other the fireman or other polygraph tests. Yet not be
employee question may refusing guilty, he but because he
the test because and, in with common writers in
is innocent field, in polygraph lacks confidence does not want to stake future
tests and on them. Iowa, Appellee, STATE results tests can- Since objection, presum- be used in court over not HENDERSON, Appellant. Rodrick D. will not ably employers civil service- use discharging employ- results *5 63510. No. appeal employees force ees and thus Supreme Court Iowa. Hence the courts. we have unanswered use question, what will be of test Jan. operator says If the results? test, failed the will the “failure”
employee record employee’s noted on the and con-
be an obstacle to advancement or to
stitute event, any will
employment elsewhere? department through circulate
word the test”? Will the employee “failed black long-time constitute a mark
failure employee notwithstanding the
against the — reliability undemonstrated
testing?
I would thus base the reversal on the ground on which we refuse admit
same evidence over results into
polygraph-test reliability. This undemonstrated
objection: of Fourth Fifth consideration
obviates implications. See Schmerber
Amendment California, 384 U.S. S.Ct. (1966) 16 L.Ed.2d
(“Some directed to obtain seemingly tests evidence,’ example, lie detector
‘physical bodily measuring changes in function
tests actually interrogation, may be di-
during eliciting which are es- responses
rected compel person
sentially To testimonial. testing in which effort will
to submit guilt or innocence made to determine
be. responses, of physiological the basis