Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Tyler MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-1014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 7, 2012.
    Filed: Aug. 9, 2012.
    
      David R. Mercer, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
    Michael S. Oliver, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

John Manning, who has been released under supervision following a prison term for a child-pornography offense, appeals the district court’s imposition of new supervised-release conditions requiring him to undergo a polygraph exam and a psy-chosexual evaluation in connection with sex-offender counseling as directed by his probation officer. We conclude that Manning’s Fifth Amendment challenge to these conditions is premature. See United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 24-25 (1st Cir.2004) (rejecting argument that mandatory polygraph violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights; defendant could not mount generalized Fifth Amendment attack on supervised release on ground that he would be required to answer probation officers’ questions truthfully; any specific Fifth Amendment objection to incriminating questions that might be asked was premature, and defendant remained free to assert Fifth Amendment privilege if such circumstances were actually to arise); United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1090-92 (11th Cir.2003) (condition requiring defendant to undergo polygraph test did not violate Fifth Amendment, where it was undisputed that there had not yet been any potentially incriminating question, invocation of privilege against self-incrimination, or government compulsion to testify over valid claim of privilege; hypothetical possibilities do not present cognizable Fifth Amendment claim; if and when defendant were to be forced to testify over valid claim of privilege, he could then raise Fifth Amendment challenge); see also United States v. Muhlenbruch, 682 F.3d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir.2012) (imposition of conditions of supervised release are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.