I was always told that police departments don't really care about the issues from your past(within reason of course) as long as you are honest about it and don't make any excuses for them. But now it seems like even if you are honest with them they still find a way to DQ you. Seems like some of the information they ask for would be better off lying about(not all departments do polygraphs) and let them figure it out they are the investigators because if being honest seems to get you DQ then what will it hurt to lie a little bit . And what's the deal with not telling applicants the reason for DQ usually just get a generic rejection letter states something to the effect of Thank You For your interest in our department but we've decided to discontinue with your application process and thats it you spend weeks filling out the application and they can't even give you a reason. Arrogance if you ask me.

I don't want to comment on the "to lie or not to lie" aspect of your thread (even though I believe it is better to never lie in the process), but I will say this, the reason they don't tell you in the letter why you are DQ'd is because it includes some personal information. For example, they don't want your mom and dad, or spouse to open up your letter and find out that you were DQ'd because you used heroin 10 years ago or something crazy like that. The department that I am currently applying with told me this and they also said that if I get a letter in the mail saying that I am DQ'd then I can call them and they will explain in detail. Hope this helps.

Departments will sometimes tell you the reason if you call, and ask to speak with the person that made the decision. Some departments just won't tell you, and they don't have to.

Being honest doesn't get you disqualified, what you did that you are being honest about might!

If that is in fact the case then why say anything at all. should it matter that someone experimented with certain drugs 20 years ago and they haven't done it since that time. why don't they recognize the positive points of a persons background like how they live their lives now. I understand that some things from a persons past cannot be overlooked and can derail the process. But, would you say is fair to say that the decision makers throw their personal feelings into the decision. Someone told me that they look at the suitability of a candidate as a defense attorney would. for example an officer testifying in a drug case can have his history of drug use called into question. I say "So What" the fact that the officer experimented with whatever drug 20 years ago has no bearing on the case. If I am mistaking please tell me how.

The problem today is that a lot of departments have plenty of applicants now. They can be very selective about who they hire.

I agree with Jenn. An applicant who did drugs 20 years ago and has done so many great things since has to compete with same exact individuals who DIDN'T do drugs 20 years ago.

Some department aren't concerned with what drugs you've tried or used 20 years ago.

GN, yeah, maybe. My point was that if you have done something in the past even if it's very minute, you have to compete with some people who are "angels" and have done nothing wrong in their entire lifetime.