| Program Statement | 5110.13 |
|---|---|
| Subject | Polygraph Tests, Administering of |
| Current edition | December 15, 1999 |
| Change notices | None |
| Supersedes | “PS 5110.09 Administering of Polygraph Tests (2/91/93)” — printed as shown; see below |
| Governing regulation | 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart G (§§ 551.70–551.71) — verified current |
| Governing statute | None cited in the Program Statement |
| Related BP forms | Attachment A, “Inmate Polygraph Authorization” — not a numbered BP form; the Program Statement states it “may be reproduced locally” |
| Official PDF | https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5110_013.pdf |
Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify
The Bureau of Prisons does not administer polygraph tests to people in its custody — it decides whether to let someone else do so inside the institution, and under the governing regulation it may permit that only where the inmate consents. The Warden is the decision-maker, a written request and the inmate’s written consent are both required, and the Bureau keeps a record of the test in the inmate’s central file. Where a polygraph is being discussed in connection with a disciplinary charge rather than a criminal investigation, read this page alongside Inmate Discipline Proceedings, because the answer there is different and well settled.
The rule itself: polygraph tests
Program Statement 5110.13 marks its own text so you can tell law from instruction. Its first page states the key: “[Bracketed Bold] – Rules” and “Regular Type – Implementing Information.” Bracketed passages are the regulation — 28 C.F.R. §§ 551.70 and 551.71 — and regular type is the Bureau’s instruction to its staff. The procedures section is reproduced below in full, verbatim.
5. [PROCEDURES §551.71
a. The Warden may permit polygraph tests in connection with a State or Federal criminal felony investigation.
b. The Warden may permit polygraph tests in connection with misdemeanor offenses, civil proceedings, or any other matters. This type of request, however, is generally disapproved, absent a federal court order for the test.]
The Warden will notify the Regional Director if a test is being considered for approval.
[c. The Warden may permit a polygraph test at the request of a defense counsel or other representative of the inmate. These requests are subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to testing by law enforcement officials.
d. The Warden may deny any request for testing which may disrupt the security or good order of the institution.
e. Upon written request to conduct a polygraph examination of an inmate, the Warden may approve the request if: (1) the validity of the request and of the examining agency can be confirmed; (2) the request complies with this section; and (3) the inmate gives written consent to the testing.]
The Inmate Polygraph Authorization form, (Attachment A) is to be used to obtain the inmate’s consent. This form may be reproduced locally.
[f. If the request is approved, the Warden shall notify the requester that he is responsible for meeting all state and local requirements in administering the test.
g. The Bureau of Prisons maintains a record in the inmate’s central file of the polygraph test, indicating the inmate’s consent and the time and place of and the personnel involved in the testing.]
Reproduced from Program Statement 5110.13 at pp. 2–3. Each bracketed passage was independently checked against 28 C.F.R. § 551.71 on ecfr.gov and matches the current text.
The scope provision, at ¶1, is the other half and sits at 28 C.F.R. § 551.70:
“The Bureau of Prisons cooperates with law enforcement officials and other authorized individuals in the performance of their duties by permitting them to administer polygraph tests to an inmate if the inmate consents to the testing.”
The Bureau adds, in its own regular type: “Preferably, the testing will take place within the institution. If essential, arrangements may be made to have an inmate escorted to the agency’s office for the testing. In that event, the inmate is to be processed in accordance with all applicable Program Statements including Escorted Trips and the Correctional Services Manual.” See Escorted Trips.
On this page
Who may be polygraphed, and on whose authority
Four things have to line up, and the regulation states each of them.
| Question | What the regulation provides |
|---|---|
| Who decides? | The Warden. Every operative verb in § 551.71 is “The Warden may permit,” “may deny,” “may approve,” “shall notify.” No other official is given approval authority in the text. |
| Who may ask? | Law enforcement officials and “other authorized individuals” (§ 551.70), and defense counsel or another representative of the inmate (§ 551.71(c)) — the latter “subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to testing by law enforcement officials.” |
| For what kind of matter? | Felony investigations, State or Federal, are the category the Warden “may permit” without qualification (§ 551.71(a)). Misdemeanors, civil proceedings “or any other matters” are permitted in principle but “generally disapproved, absent a federal court order for the test” (§ 551.71(b)). |
| On what conditions? | A written request; confirmation of “the validity of the request and of the examining agency”; compliance with the section; and the inmate’s written consent (§ 551.71(e)). |
Two further limits are easy to miss. First, § 551.71(d) gives the Warden a standalone ground to say no: “The Warden may deny any request for testing which may disrupt the security or good order of the institution.” That applies even where every other box is ticked — approval is discretionary throughout, and nothing in the regulation obliges the Warden to permit a test.
Second, the Bureau does not take on responsibility for how the test is run. Under § 551.71(f), if the request is approved, the Warden “shall notify the requester that he is responsible for meeting all state and local requirements in administering the test.” The examiner comes from outside; licensing and procedural compliance stay with the requester.
The Program Statement adds one instruction in its own voice on the disfavoured category: where a test is being considered for approval under paragraph (b), “[t]he Warden will notify the Regional Director.” That is a staff-level notification requirement, not a regulatory approval step — the Regional Director is told, not asked.
The consent form, and what it says
Attachment A to the Program Statement is a one-page form headed “INMATE POLYGRAPH AUTHORIZATION.” It is not a numbered BP form and the Program Statement states it “may be reproduced locally”; the form itself is stamped “LOCAL REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZED.” It is a fill-in-the-blanks authorization naming the inmate, register number, institution, the polygraph company, the location and date, and the case or investigation it relates to.
The operative sentence — the one a reader is actually being asked to sign under — is this:
“I do this voluntarily, and with no promise of favor or coercion by the Bureau of Prisons.”
Reproduced from Program Statement 5110.13, Attachment A, at p. 4.
The form also carries the heading “ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OATH” beneath the signature and date lines. What the form does not contain is worth stating plainly, because a reader holding it will look for these and not find them: there is no Privacy Act notice, no Paperwork Reduction Act notice, and no false-statement warning printed on it, and it names no deadline. It records consent and nothing else.
Note also what the consent covers. Section 551.71(e)(3) makes written consent a condition of the Warden’s approval, and § 551.70 conditions the Bureau’s cooperation on the inmate consenting. The consent is to the testing. The form says nothing about what happens to the result, who may see it, or how it may be used later — and neither does the regulation.
What refusal does, and what it does not do
This is the question people arrive with, and it deserves a precise answer rather than a reassuring one.
Neither the regulation nor the Program Statement states any consequence for declining. Consent is written into § 551.70 and § 551.71(e)(3) as a condition of the Warden approving a test at all. Read the four pages of PS 5110.13 and the two sections of subpart G end to end, and there is no provision imposing discipline, no loss of privileges, no adverse notation, and no stated consequence of any kind attached to withholding consent. There is also no provision saying that no consequence may follow.
That is the accurate state of this policy, and it is the whole of what these documents say. This page does not advise you whether to consent to a polygraph. That decision can carry consequences in a criminal investigation, in a pending case, or in a supervision matter that have nothing to do with Bureau policy and everything to do with your own legal position, and it is a decision to make with your own lawyer before you sign anything.
What refusal does not do is equally worth stating. Because the Bureau’s role under this regulation is permissive — it decides whether to let an outside examiner in — declining a polygraph is not the same as refusing a lawful order in the way that, for example, refusing a search is. Compare the Bureau’s whole body imaging policy, which expressly routes a refusal to screening into the disciplinary process; this Program Statement contains no equivalent provision. See Whole Body Imaging for that contrast.
Polygraphs and prison discipline: a settled answer
A recurring and reasonable question is whether you can ask for a polygraph to clear yourself at a disciplinary hearing before a Discipline Hearing Officer. The federal courts have addressed this, and the answer is no.
In Jones v. Ortiz, No. 1:17-cv-02639 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019), a federal prisoner challenged a disciplinary finding partly on the ground that he had been denied a polygraph examination. The court held: “Assuming arguendo that Petitioner did request a polygraph examination prior to his hearing, his due process rights were not violated when the BOP failed to provide him with one. ‘The procedural safeguards of Wolff do not guarantee a prisoner the right to present any evidence he wishes.'” The court collected decisions from the Seventh and Eighth Circuits holding that prisoners are not entitled to a lie-detector test at a prison disciplinary hearing as a matter of law.
The court’s reasoning about why is useful beyond the holding: “Disputes of fact among witnesses, as here, are best sorted out by testimony under oath or affirmation accompanied by cross-examination of persons with knowledge; whether Petitioner was insolent as charged does not depend on scientific issues on which polygraph testing and expert opinion testimony would benefit the finder of fact.” The lesson for anyone preparing for a disciplinary hearing is that the effort belongs in witness statements and documentary evidence, not in a request the hearing officer is not obliged to grant.
Jones is also the clearest judicial statement about the reach of this Program Statement. The Discipline Hearing Officer in that case had “interpreted Program Statement 5110.13 to only apply to criminal inquiries,” and the court held that his “conclusion that BOP policy did not permit polygraph examinations in inmate disciplinary proceedings is a legitimate reason to deny Petitioner a polygraph examination,” citing Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995), for the proposition that the Bureau’s interpretation of its Program Statements is entitled to deference. In Koray itself, the Supreme Court described a Program Statement as “an internal agency guideline” that is “akin to an ‘interpretive rule’ that ‘do[es] not require notice and comment,'” and is “still entitled to some deference.” A Program Statement is not a regulation, and this one is read by the Bureau as a criminal-investigation policy.
What the polygraph policy means for you
If you are the person inside: understand who is asking
Understand who is actually asking. A polygraph under this policy comes from outside the Bureau — a law enforcement agency, a prosecutor’s office, or your own lawyer — and the Bureau’s role is limited to permitting or refusing it and recording that it happened. If someone presents you with an “Inmate Polygraph Authorization,” that is the consent form described above, and signing it is the step that lets the test proceed.
Before you sign anything, talk to your lawyer. That is not a formality. A polygraph in connection with a criminal investigation touches your Fifth Amendment position, any cooperation posture, and any pending or potential charge, and none of that is governed by Bureau policy. The Program Statement is silent on the consequences of the result — it tells you only that a record of the test, your consent, the time and place, and the personnel involved goes into your central file under § 551.71(g). That record persists. See Central File and Records.
If the request is connected to a disciplinary charge rather than a criminal matter, the section above sets out the settled answer, and your effort is better spent on the hearing record itself.
If you are the family: this is not a routine process
The main thing to know is that this is not a routine prison procedure. A polygraph is not part of intake, classification, programming, or discipline. It arises when an outside agency or a defense lawyer wants one in connection with a specific investigation or case, and it requires the Warden’s approval plus written consent.
If you have been told your loved one “has to take a polygraph,” ask two questions: who is requesting it, and in connection with what matter. Those two answers determine everything — a felony investigation under § 551.71(a) sits in a different posture from a civil or “other” matter under § 551.71(b), which the regulation says is “generally disapproved, absent a federal court order.” And the request should be in writing; the regulation contemplates a written request as the trigger for the Warden’s decision.
Encourage contact with counsel before any form is signed. Nobody in the family, and nobody at the institution, is positioned to advise on what a polygraph means for a criminal exposure.
If you are counsel: polygraph requests
Section 551.71(c) is the provision to know: the Warden “may permit a polygraph test at the request of a defense counsel or other representative of the inmate,” and such requests are “subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to testing by law enforcement officials.” The route is therefore symmetrical — a written request to the Warden, confirmation of the validity of the request and of the examining agency, compliance with the section, and the client’s written consent.
Build the request to survive § 551.71(d), which lets the Warden deny anything that “may disrupt the security or good order of the institution.” Practical friction points: the examiner’s credentials and agency, whether testing occurs inside (the Program Statement’s stated preference) or requires an escorted trip under the Escorted Trips policy, and, for a matter that is not a State or Federal criminal felony investigation, the fact that paragraph (b) makes disapproval the default “absent a federal court order for the test.”
Two cautions. First, § 551.71(f) puts responsibility for “meeting all state and local requirements in administering the test” on the requester — that is you, not the Bureau. Second, § 551.71(g) means the fact of the test, the consent, the time and place and the personnel involved are recorded in the client’s central file regardless of outcome. The admissibility and evidentiary weight of any result are governed by the rules of the forum, not by this Program Statement, which says nothing about either. Where a polygraph is being considered as part of developing a post-conviction record, that evidentiary question should be resolved before the request is made, not after — see Federal § 2255 Motions.
What has not changed in PS 5110.13
Very little, for a very long time. Program Statement 5110.13 was signed on December 15, 1999 by then-Director Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, carries no Change Notice, and remains in the Bureau’s in-force policy set. Its “Directives Affected” block at p. 1 records a single rescission: “PS 5110.09 Administering of Polygraph Tests.”
That entry contains a defect worth noting, because anyone tracing the policy’s history will hit it. The rescinded edition’s date is printed as “(2/91/93)” — which is not a date. There is no 91st day of February. The malformed string appears in the Bureau’s own published PDF, not in any transcription of it, so it cannot be resolved by re-reading the source. The true date of PS 5110.09 is not recoverable from this document, and this page does not guess at it.
The underlying regulation has been as stable as the policy. 28 C.F.R. § 551.70 and § 551.71 sit in part 551, subpart G, are both current with an effective date of 2016-12-29, and their text matches the bracketed passages the Program Statement quoted in 1999 word for word. Neither the 2026 Bureau reissues — a mass reissue of twenty-three Program Statements effective 22 June 2026, and dozens more between February and May 2026 — nor any earlier wave touched this policy.
The two Program Statements it cross-references have not been so static. PS 5500.09 Correctional Services Manual (10/27/97) and PS 5538.04 Escorted Trips (12/23/96) are both cited at their 1990s editions; the Bureau’s escorted-trips instruction has since moved, and the current edition is the one that governs an escorted trip for testing today. Where this Program Statement points you to another policy, check that policy’s own current edition rather than the edition number printed here in 1999.
Where people get stuck over a polygraph authorization
“They want me to sign a polygraph authorization and I don’t know what it is.” It is Attachment A to this Program Statement — a locally reproduced consent form that names the examiner, the location and date, and the investigation, and includes the sentence “I do this voluntarily, and with no promise of favor or coercion by the Bureau of Prisons.” Ask for time to speak with your lawyer before signing. The form carries no deadline, and the regulation makes your written consent a precondition of the Warden approving anything.
“I asked for a polygraph at my DHO hearing and was refused.” That refusal is consistent with how the federal courts have treated the question and with how the Bureau reads this Program Statement — as applying to criminal inquiries rather than to disciplinary proceedings. Direct your effort at the disciplinary record instead: witness statements, staff representative involvement, and documentary evidence. See Inmate Discipline Program and Inmate Discipline Proceedings.
“My lawyer requested a polygraph and the Warden said no.” Approval is discretionary at every stage, and § 551.71(d) permits denial of any request that “may disrupt the security or good order of the institution.” If the matter is not a State or Federal criminal felony investigation, paragraph (b) makes disapproval the stated default absent a federal court order. Where a denial appears to rest on a misreading of the policy rather than on security, the administrative remedy process is the route: an informal resolution attempt first, then under 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 the BP-9 deadline “is 20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred,” with appeals under 28 C.F.R. § 542.15 — BP-10 within 20 calendar days of the Warden’s signature, BP-11 within 30 calendar days of the Regional Director’s. See How to File a BP-9.
“There’s a polygraph in my central file and I want it out.” Section 551.71(g) provides for that record affirmatively — consent, time, place, and personnel involved — so its presence is what the regulation contemplates rather than an error. If the entry is inaccurate rather than merely unwelcome, the correction route runs through central file review and the Privacy Act. See FOIA and Privacy Act Requests.
Related BOP policy on investigations
This Program Statement names two others by title, and both are worth reading at their current editions rather than at the 1990s editions printed in its reference block: Escorted Trips, which governs a trip out of the institution if testing cannot happen inside — the Program Statement’s stated preference is that it happen inside — and the Correctional Services Manual. Because § 551.71(g) puts a record of any test in the central file, continue to Central File and Records and FOIA and Privacy Act Requests. Where the polygraph question arises out of a disciplinary charge, the governing material is the Inmate Discipline Program, Inmate Discipline Proceedings and the BP-A0288 Incident Report. For the contrast between a policy that conditions a procedure on consent and one that routes refusal into discipline, see Whole Body Imaging. Where a request is stalling and internal channels are not resolving it, see the Administrative Remedy Program, Prison Grievances and Federal Prison Consulting Services.
Frequently Asked Questions About Polygraph Tests
Can the BOP make an inmate take a polygraph?
Under the governing regulation, no test may be administered without the inmate’s consent. 28 C.F.R. § 551.70 frames the Bureau’s role as “permitting” law enforcement officials and other authorized individuals to administer a polygraph “if the inmate consents to the testing,” and § 551.71(e)(3) makes the inmate’s written consent a condition of the Warden approving a request.
Who approves a polygraph test in federal prison?
The Warden. Section 551.71 assigns every approval and denial decision to the Warden, who may permit a test in connection with a State or Federal criminal felony investigation, may permit one for a misdemeanor, civil or other matter (though such requests are “generally disapproved, absent a federal court order”), and may deny any request that “may disrupt the security or good order of the institution.” The Program Statement adds that the Warden will notify the Regional Director where a test is being considered for approval in that second category.
What happens if an inmate refuses a polygraph?
Neither 28 C.F.R. §§ 551.70–551.71 nor Program Statement 5110.13 states any consequence for declining. Consent is written in as a condition of the Warden approving a test at all, and the documents contain no provision imposing discipline or any other penalty for withholding it — and none stating that no consequence may follow. Whether to consent is a decision with implications outside Bureau policy, and it should be made with your own lawyer.
Can my lawyer request a polygraph for me?
Yes. 28 C.F.R. § 551.71(c) provides that “[t]he Warden may permit a polygraph test at the request of a defense counsel or other representative of the inmate,” and that “[t]hese requests are subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to testing by law enforcement officials.” The same written request, agency-validation, and written-consent conditions apply, and approval remains discretionary.
Can I get a polygraph to clear myself at a disciplinary hearing?
No. In Jones v. Ortiz, No. 1:17-cv-02639 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019), the court held that a federal prisoner’s “due process rights were not violated when the BOP failed to provide him with” a polygraph before a disciplinary hearing, collecting Seventh and Eighth Circuit decisions to the same effect. The court also upheld as legitimate the hearing officer’s reading of Program Statement 5110.13 as applying only to criminal inquiries.
Who pays for a polygraph, and who runs it?
The Program Statement does not address cost. It does address responsibility: under § 551.71(f), if the Warden approves, he “shall notify the requester that he is responsible for meeting all state and local requirements in administering the test.” The examiner is external — Attachment A has a blank for the “name of polygraph co.” — and licensing and procedural compliance rest with whoever requested the test.
Does a polygraph go in my central file?
Yes. 28 C.F.R. § 551.71(g) provides that “[t]he Bureau of Prisons maintains a record in the inmate’s central file of the polygraph test, indicating the inmate’s consent and the time and place of and the personnel involved in the testing.” The regulation does not provide for recording the result itself in that entry.
Where does the test take place?
Preferably inside the institution. The Program Statement states in its own voice that “[p]referably, the testing will take place within the institution,” and that “[i]f essential, arrangements may be made to have an inmate escorted to the agency’s office for the testing,” in which case the inmate is processed under the Escorted Trips and Correctional Services Manual policies.
Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026