N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SPENC ER

ANTONIO TUGGLE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30248

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00074-SI-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , B ER

ZON, a nd W ATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . 1. Othe r tha

n the Fifth Am e ndm e nt proble m disc usse d be low, the distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

re quiring Spe nc e r Tuggle to (1) c om ple te a dom e stic viole n c e e va luation, a nd (2) re fra in from

any c o nta c t with them othe r of his son not re la te d to c h i ldc are or visita tion. Afte r c onside ring the tota lity of the 

# FIL ED
MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 3

c irc um s ta nc e s , the c ourt re a sona

bly found tha

t the se a dditiona l c onditions would
a id Tuggle ’ s re ha

b ilita t ion a nd he lp prote c t the public . The c ourt did not im pe rm issibly re ly

on unsubsta

ntia te d a lle g at ions in im

posing the se ne w c onditions. Se e Unite d

State s v . Abbouc hi , 502 F.3d 850, 857–58 (9th C ir. 2007). The c ourt ba se d its de c ision on informa tion c olle c te d by Tuggle ’ s proba

tion offic e r
and Tuggle ’ s own te stim ony a t the re voc a t ion he a

ring, whic h

e sta b lishe d tha

t, at the v e ry le a st, Tuggle ’ s re l a tionship with his e x-girlfrie nd wa s suffic ie ntly vola tile to wa rra nt the c ourt’ s inte rve ntion. 2. Tuggle ’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt c ha lle nge to the dom e stic viole nc e e va luation
re quire m e nt is ripe for re vie w a t this tim e . To c om ple te a m e aningful e v a l ua tion, Tuggle will ne c e ssa

rily be re quire d to a

n swe r a num be r of pote ntia lly inc rim inating que stions re ga rding a ny pa st history

of dom e stic viole n c e he m ay have . Se e Unite d State

s v . Stre ic h , 560 F.3d 926, 931–32 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c o urt sta

te d tha t it wa s “ not orde ring [Tuggle ] to wa ive any of his
c onstitutiona

l rights.” B y so sta

ting, the distric t

c ourt m ay have inte nde d to provide Tuggle with im

m unity for an y sta te m e nts he m a ke s during thec ourse of the e va luation, to e nsure tha t he c an c om

ply with the m a

ndatory c ondition without risking e ithe r se l f-inc rim ination or re voc a tion of his supe rvise d re le a se . Se e Unite d State s v . Bahr , 730 F.3d 963, 966–67 (9th C i r. 2013). Howe v e r, be c a usePa ge 3 of 3

the re c ord is unc le ar on tha t sc ore , we va c a te the dom e stic viole nc e e va luat ion
re quire m e nt a

nd re m and to the distric t c ourt for c l arific ation. If the distric t c ourt doe s not gra

nt Tuggle im

m unity , he m ay

not be punishe d for re fusing to a nswe r
any que stions pose d during the c ourse of the e va luation tha t pre se nt a

re a l a nd
a ppre c ia ble risk of se lf-inc rim ination. S e e Unite d State

s v . Ante l ope , 395 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th C ir. 2005). AFFIRM E D IN PART , V ACAT E D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D.