What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?
Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and
Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.
Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html
The short answer is no. In the Florida case of Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 the Supreme Court of Florida said that lie detector evidence would not have been admissible directly and it was not admissible by inference. The reasoning according to the court is that it is not sufficiently reliable to pass the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence under Florida law. "The results of a polygraph test remain inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases because of unreliability." Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1983); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952))
This does not mean that the police or other investigating authorities may not use it for the purpose of investigating a crime or discovering new evidence. The police also claim it is a tool for ruling out suspects. This is probably the least probable justification of its use by the police and is more than likely a less portentious approach to getting persons of interest to voluntarily take one. Although you may pass a polygraph it does not mean the police will rule you out as a suspect in a crime.
If you are charged with a crime or questioned by the police about your potential involvement in a crime, the best rule to follow is to keep your mouth shut until you have spoken with an attorney. You have an absolute right to remain silent and your election to do so cannot be used against your in a court of law. Although the polygraph test itself may not be used in court, your statements made during a polygraph may be used against you if they are inconsistent or shed some light on your guilt. The prosecution must simply refrain from discussing the fact that the statements were made during a polygraph test.
http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html
Admissibility
Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.
http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/frequently-asked-questions
Shall I keep going?????
~jmo~