United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50314

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Perre Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-120-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Perre Jones appeals his revocation sentence, namely the imposition of 

a condition of supervised release requiring him to participate in a sex offender 

treatment program and abide by the program rules, “including submission to 

the polygraph testing, to determine if he/she is in compliance with the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50314 Document: 00516206479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 21-50314

2

conditions of release.” According to Jones, this special condition violates his 

Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, in the 

alternative, an extension of time in which to file a brief. Jones, relying on an

out-of-circuit case, does not concede that his issue is foreclosed. We 

therefore deny the Government’s motion for summary affirmance. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

However, because Jones is not entitled to the relief he seeks, as discussed 

below, we dispense with further briefing and affirm.

Requiring probationers to undergo polygraph examinations as a 

condition of their supervised release does not violate the Fifth Amendment. 

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427-29, 435-36 (1984); United States 

v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2007). The obligation to undergo a 

polygraph test—and to answer questions truthfully—does not displace the 

constitutional right against self-incrimination. If, in the course of a polygraph 

test, Jonesis asked questions posing “a realistic threat of self-incrimination,” 

he may assert the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer. Murphy, 465 U.S. 

at 427–29 (quote at 427). If, however, Jones is asked questions simply 

pertaining to whether he has violated the terms of his probation, the Fifth 

Amendment is not implicated. Locke, 482 F.3d at 767. “A probationer may 

only invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege if a truthful answer would 

incriminate the probationer by exposing him to prosecution for a different 

crime.” Id. Finally, a Fifth Amendment-based refusal to answer questions 

may not be treated as a violation of his probation conditions. Murphy, 

465 U.S. at 435; Locke, 482 F.3d at 767.

At bottom, our inquiry is whether Jones’s supervised release 

condition “merely required him to appear and give testimony about matters 

relevant to his [supervision] status or whether [it] went farther and required 

Case: 21-50314 Document: 00516206479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 21-50314

3

him to choose between making incriminating statements and jeopardizing his 

conditional liberty by remaining silent.” Murphy, 465 U.S. at 436. On its 

face, Jones’s sex offender treatment condition requiring polygraph 

examination does “not attempt to take the extra, impermissible step” and, 

therefore, does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Id. Jones remains free to 

assert the Fifth Amendment should ever the need arise.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance or an extension of 

time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50314 Document: 00516206479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2022