this court to reverse the revocation of his supervised release and remand this matter for re sensi as a term of mr turmel's original supervised release as well as subsequent extension incrimination the district court provided mr turmel with essentially a grant of immunity for statements that he made during any examination specifically the provision of the terms and conditions of the supervis release provided that the results of a polygraph examination will not be used for the purpose of revocation of mr turmel supervised release mr dickey in this case this  the materials it seemed that the government was able to put before the court of facts i'm not potentially warranting revocation without resort to the results of the polygraph based on the defendant's own statements outside of the polygraph context is that it correct your honor i think that is we would disagree on that  characterization of the record so expects playing to me then when he tells his probation officer outside of the context of the polygraph that he hasn't disclosed information that can be brought for to the court for consideration of revocation sure and i'll answer that two parts the st is i think what the record shows is that with respect to that specific violation which is the contact with the minor  in the july polygraph examination during the post interview phase he admitted to having contact with a minor and then followed up the examination with a call to the probation officer in which he admitted that he had feelings for a minor so so the actual admission of the contact came during the examination and it was providing additional context during subsequent interview now to the nd point which is really the heart of this appeal this court has to stop the scope of the immunity privileges that was provided in the search supervised release conditions so if this were a case of statutory interpretation for go when to say results because that at some level you can look at results or simply being the estimation of the operator of the device whether or not he has an opinion about his truthtelling or it could be maybe their actual physiological data that's recorded does that limit the use of actual statements that are made as opposed to simply what the results of the test itself might be so so the the district court interpreted the provision as not her writing in the miss ability of what judge is called lida it's rape which is evidence that would not have been obtained but for the statements we think that leads evidence should be excluded under a casting our type analysis and next the supplies but for mr trumbull statements during the examination there would not have been any need to follow up with a probation officer and the probation officer would not have had any reason to follow up with a minor child's that the district court should undertake it casting our type analysis riemannian and if the if the court does that at least this current record the government has not established in a truly provision and looks at the purposes we would submit that also supports our interpretation because the purpose of it in the only logical reason why a court would put that community is exactly the same kind of situation in cassock are where you have and what specific information d's state that the district court use from the polygraph examination to revoke so with respect to the contact with a minor the district court sided evidence that the probation officer on july st the day after the july examination contacted the miners china and the miners grandmother in corroborated that mr trimble ad contact so but for is admissions in the examination she would not have known to even who the grandmother was and have any basis to contact her but his contact with the probation officer was not his own no one forced him to do that well i mean not that i would disagree with that  when the terms and conditions of his supervision say that he must participate in a polygraph examination if he doesn't do that then he's going to be revoked the district court said strickland said if you refuse to is very questions you would have been placed in jail so up so the initial basis for the conversation with the probation officer following the july th examination was from the examination itself and so if a court were to undertake a kastigar type analysis that is not it a truly independent basis for rosset tended to do that she would have placed him in jail until he answered questions which included key had done for other individuals and so did she say mr dickey specifically and that he had no right to invoke his th amendment privilege that would seem contrary to minnesota versus murphy did she say that or did was the statement you just quoted in different context about going to jail she so if you look at the transcript she did not specifically reference the th amendment during my argument i pointed out to the court had he shown up and and said i'm not answering any questions it would have been held in conte in during the court's analysis she confirmed my interpretation and she said mr dick is right if mr turmel showed up and refused to answer questions as part of the examination he would be bored in jail and he'd sit there until he answers which she has done in other cases so while not specifically mentioning the th amendment i don't know if it would come in to her and said you can't put my guy in jail for declining on the th amendment grounds because minnesota versus murphy she may have come to a different view that i think i agree with the judge called and i think you're right i think he did have the right to assert the th amendment which which supports our so i think that's unfair to put that on mr trouble here's why i thought that's what happened in murphy that's why i was right and i'm a go ahead tell me but tell me here's where it's different i mean mr turmel was told he has to answer the questions or he you know he's going to go to jail for contempt but he's also told me as immunity which means he essentially doesn't have a right to self probation because he can accrue themself because he's he has a form of immunity and that's the rub in it and so the only way to logically interpret this provision in a way that's consistent with his th amendment rights in a way that's consistent with the no i think in that situation there is independent evidence that would be sufficient to support that our we are asking for resetting if the nd condition is reverse and fifty three dollars houses and so the nature of circumstances of the offense are entirely different additionally i think it's important to note mr trimble advised his probation officer in may of two thousand and twenty about purchasing in possessing the phone for is for is this roommate and he was not violating at that time this was only added as part of refineries subsequently in august i think there's a reasonable inference that it was in violation number two the most of the evidence from that contact with minors also came unsolicited phone call from mr trump so the foundational evidence for both of these violations ar substantially similar to the extent both came from unsolicited phone calls to the probation officer by a mystery from one of those phone calls  a polygraph exam but that's a distinction without a difference mr trumbull on both occasions picked up the phone called his probation officer and told her that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release i don't think there's any basis in the law to revoke to to suppress that particular evidence there's ample thirty from this court cited in my brief that's the case united states versus ha exactly did he disclosed to this prudish an officer when he called the probation office with what did he say to them which time are you referring to your honor in relation to to  the extended stay home hotel where mr trumbull was leavened her grandmother's name with tina she worked at the hotel he disclosed that he was sexually attracted to her he had spoken with her as a result of those disclosures voluntary disclosures that were made to the probation office she also testified that she picked up the phone and did some investigation and talked to d the grandmother and confirmed that the contacts that mr trimble had admitted to in may of two thousand and twenty had in fact occurred so what we have is him making the statement the probation officer picking up the phone and independently corroborating them the probation officer with the probation officer aware of the polygraph the records not really clear on that so i would i would suspect that she was  your honor absolutely the main issue the defense is arguing here i think the alleged kind of their argument is focusing on why is that the conditions of mr trumbull supervised release were the district court order that the results yes mr trimble had to attend sex offender treatment that included a polygraph that's a standard condition certainly in our just and i think throughout the nation and that the results of the polygraph would not be used against him that was not an immunity provision that was basically a provision explaining why evidence could and could not be used as a matter of revocation so in this particular case the result of a polygraph exam are simple the results are whether the defendant answers to specific questions when he's hooked up to the polygraph machine are boarding to the machine and according to the analysis by refer either deceptive not deceptive or inconclusive and at no point in these proceedings did we attempt to revoke mr trumbull based on the results of the trial hearing testimony from ms meier who would talk to the political and she explained on this record that those are in fact what is matt and the profession by the results of the polygraph examination and i would point it about the defendant's physical reactions when he was asked certain questions during the polygraph not whether they were true for on truth and conclusive polygamy for what people there saw the defendant when he was asked questions there and this court held that the responses to questions asked during the polygraph and admissible so i think under the law this if the responses if you can offer into evidence and it shouldn't be suppressed  they didn't involve an agreement about whether to use resulted in that was just a case about whether polygraph ambling seem general is admissible that's a totally different question from whether an agreement has a certain meaning i'm not sure i understand your question your honor when you say an agreement what agreement are you referring to well an agreement agreement or an order here i guess is the better term that the results will not be it was just a case about whether polygraph evidence is admissible but the order here could exclude more than what the law excludes i don't believe it does or all the order a result d of the polygraph exam will not be the basis for repetition yeah they were an act here well meaning but i'm just saying i don't think ross interpreted that the term results in a supervised release order or is the term results and this is that where the focus your argument used to play well again your honor if you go back and look at the record there was testimony from ms meyer based on her expertise or her knowledge  record in this particular even judge rose didn't agree with your position on that she said she would exclude more than just the polygamy for years  interpretation i thought she said she would exclude the early supervised these answers in the exam so she must've she she thought it was broader than what you're saying no your honor that is not accurate what did in this particular case to go back and read the transcript what she was doing that she was ruling as a matter of fairness to an equitable solution she thought that for a person say was as broad as the defense is arguing but she excluded more than what you're saying results means she was in between go i'm sorry just not my questions and maybe i'm wrong but i seem to recall from the transcript that she said well my understanding is what the government's understanding is and i'm going to then exclude and she went on to talk about not considering the answers given right is that what was said i just don't you know not intimately familiar with the transcript i read it but basically what the district court was doing what judge rose beginning of a hearing i think it's wro she said that d she was basically kind of previewed and said that regardless of what she eventually ruled the beginning of the case that she thought violations two dollars and three  both independent of the result of the examination and so she was inclined to focus on those issues we presented evidence on the entirety of the other violations and the evidence on the other violations and substantial amount came from things that mr trumbull said during the course of his polygraph examination during the pre or post test it wasn't the result  at the end of the day judge exercised her discretion and tried to she did revoke him only on the two violations that were not related to the results of the polygraph examinations that were both related to independent phone calls of unsolicited phone calls that mr trumbull made to this probation officer or he admitted st that he had authorized contact with the minor which was corroborated by her grandmother  and nd that he had an unauthorized possession of the cell phone which was corroborated by a police report and so i believe based on this record we do not have any th amendment violation and this judge calls and i think noted earlier it seems to me the controlling valid claim of privilege and in this particular case mr trimble didn't make the claim of privilege his attorney did make the claim of privilege he answered question but again we're not even dealing with the answers to the questions within the meaning of the th amendment the fact that you have to show up at the probation officer is not the start of deal with sensibly what happened here it was required to go and participate in the polygraph exam but because he wasn't compelled to incriminate himself the information that he volunteered was the best but i think the same thing holds true here mr trimble was not compelled to incriminate himself he picked up the phone on both occasions call this probation officer that was his emphasis was for doing that i think is irrelevant it doesn't matter whether he felt guilty it doesn't matter whether he had this based on information he disclosed during the pre test of the post i have that that's really relevant what matters is that he voluntarily picked up the phone made d voluntary phone call on two occasions to his probation officer they were not soli didn't know they was going to be calling her and on both occasions he admitted to engage in conduct that violated the terms and conditions of the supervisor but that had nothing to do with the polygraph result forth in the record of this case the probation officer then took that information and corroborated it in that one instance by talking to the young lady's grandmother and the other instances far as the cell phone is concerned by requiring the police report to confirm that the transcript page thirty four to forty that sets out the specific order and actions between mr trimble's mission and the probation officers follow up in the july as in the nation mr trimble admitted that there was a minor walked into the extended stay hotel lobby in the g m s that was during the examination he followed up with a call to the probation officer immediately after to admit that he had had feelings about that minor then the next month in august during the examination and this is on speed he disclosed that further that he gave the miner and the grandmother a ride  based on that information the probation officer then followed up so quickly made contact with the grandmother and verified we submit that record indicates that four is admissions examination there would not be evidence that would have been admitted at the revocation hearing to support the violation number two it let me give you a hypothetical that demonstrates that danger so suppose this provision in use in supervised release conditions you know future supervised offenders will undergo polygraph examinations slide probation officer will simply immediately follow which says that the results can't be used against them so you know the immunity provision is rendered meaningless at the government's positions allowed to prevail the judge call it and you're correct that this court you know did recognize it was soon at least with respect to three of the five violations and said that the evidence was not admissible in the violations were not found i wondered about that i wonder if i was correct it's a little unclear because that one point the judge says and she thinks the language she interprets the provision is that the finding of the plague referred deceptive or truthful or inconclusive cannot be used by anything the person says in connection with it can be used but then she talks about using this as a teaching moment and how there may be a lack of clarity and she says she's not going to find a violation on  number forty five and six so i don't know did she really say that results is broader than the conclusion or was she just i don't she doing something else mr she just my time has expired i answer that question yes she made me respond to the question so i think you're correct just call it and she does make those comments i think ultimately her conclusion and she excluded and that's why the three of the five works looted what would she call it lead ins which would be you know the subsequent investigation based on the admissions would not be and so that's the rub that that