United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-2768

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Randall Allen Herbst

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: April 13, 2022

Filed: July 21, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Randall Allen Herbst is on supervised release in connection with his 

conviction for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Herbst’s original terms of supervised release 

included a provision permitting a polygraph examination as part of his sex offender 

treatment program. During a June 2020 pre-polygraph interview, Herbst disclosed 
-2- 

a previous heart bypass surgery, which required a medical release prior to 

polygraphing. A physician was unwilling to provide an opinion about Herbst’s 

fitness to participate in polygraph examinations due to his cardiovascular issues, 

citing a lack of experience with polygraphs. The district court1 modified Herbst’s

supervised release condition to allow Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer 

(“CVSA”)2 examinations in lieu of the polygraphs. Herbst challenges the 

modification, arguing CVSA testing does not reasonably relate to the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) factors due to its inaccuracy.

District courts have broad discretion to modify conditions of supervised 

release. United States v. Trimble, 969 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2020). We review a 

modification of a supervised release condition for abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Newell, 915 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 2019).

The Second Circuit is the only federal circuit to have specifically addressed 

the propriety of CVSA examinations as a condition of supervised release. It upheld 

the use of such examinations on the ground that the testing may further the 

sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence. United States v. Parisi, 821 

F.3d 343, 349 (2d Cir. 2016) (per curiam); see United States v. Maggese, 785 F. 

App’x 879, 881-82 (2d Cir. 2019) (observing that CVSA’s purported unreliability 

did not preclude the district court from finding it is reasonably related to the 

sentencing factors). We have adopted similar reasoning in upholding polygraph 

examinations generally. See United States v. Smith, 960 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 

2020) (explaining polygraph testing need not be proven, legitimized, or validated as 

an effective tool when used for treatment).

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired.

2

CVSA is a type of polygraph that reports whether a person’s answers to 

“questions are ‘deceptive’ or ‘not deceptive.’” Woods v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 329 

F. App’x 688, 691 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam).
-3- 

Because Herbst’s medical condition prevented him from participating in a sex 

offender treatment program with polygraph examinations, the district court 

reasonably concluded that CVSA was an alternative that created similar candor 

incentives. The condition was reasonably related to the pertinent 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, specifically including the nature of the offense, the need to protect 

the public, and the need to provide appropriate correctional treatment. The 

modification here involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably

necessary and supports the Sentencing Commission’s policy that sex offenders 

participate in a program approved by probation for treatment and monitoring. See

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7); Smith, 960 F.3d at 1110. We find no abuse of discretion in 

modifying the special condition to permit CVSA examinations. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________