v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir.1996). The District Court held that Fluegel had probable cause to arrest Nawrocki in significant part because of the polygraph evidence which the Nawrockis claim was erroneously admitted. We review the District Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Hur admissible. See, e.g., United States v. Crumby, 895 F.Supp., 1354, 1358-63 (D.Ariz.1995) (polygraph evidence admissible because sufficiently reliable given narrow purposes); United States v. Galbreth, 908 F.Supp. 877, 878-95 (D.N.M. 1995) (polygraph evidence admissible because reliable in specific case). However, most appellate courts that have discussed polygraph evidence after Daubert have ruled against admitting it. See, e.g., United States v. Lea, 249 F.3d 632, 639-40 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Benavidez-Benavidez, 217
holding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to submit to a polygraph test holding that evidence of a witnessess refusal to take a polygraph exam is inadmissible holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible holding that the polygraph results were excludable under er 403 holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is