Opinion ID: 780364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is the Polygraph Condition Void For Vagueness?

Text: 30 Lee contends that the polygraph condition is void for vagueness because it leaves too much discretion to the probation officer. According to Lee, the polygraph condition does not inform him of the type of examination to which he will be subject, what will constitute a violation of supervised release, or whether he will bear the expense of paying for the test. 31 In United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 262 (3d Cir.2001), we held that a condition of supervised release violates due process and is void for vagueness if it either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. See also United States v. Schave, 186 F.3d 839, 843 (7th Cir.1999) (A condition of supervised release is unconstitutionally vague if it would not afford a person of reasonable intelligence with sufficient notice as to the conduct prohibited.). 32 As noted previously, the polygraph condition in the instant case reads as follows: The defendant shall submit to random polygraph examination, examination to be administered by a certified examiner, at the direction and discretion of the United States Probation Office. (Appendix at A-8). We do not believe that this condition is vague. It simply presents the ordinary requirement for Lee to appear at a probation interview and answer questions posed by the probation officer, with the addition of the use of the polygraph machine. A person of ordinary intelligence can understand that the condition directs him to answer questions the probation officer considers appropriate to ask, subject to his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that may incriminate him in a future criminal proceeding. 33 Appellant, nevertheless, claims that the condition is vague because the subject matter of the questioning was not limited in scope. Although the district court did not explicitly define the scope of the questioning on the judgment itself, we note that at the sentencing hearing, the court expressed that the polygraph condition is a tool ... used within a totality of other tools to assist Probation in the conduct of its supervision. (Appendix at A-67). As such, the scope of the questioning should be limited to that which relates to the supervision, monitoring, and treatment of the appellant. See also United States v. Wilson, No. 98-5373, 1998 WL 939987, at  (6th Cir. Dec.22, 1998) (stating that polygraphs are tools to help the probation officer monitor defendant's rehabilitation and compliance with release conditions); United States v. Ebihara, No. 01 Cr. 225-01, 2002 WL 432378, at  (S.D.N.Y. Mar.20, 2002) (ordering defendant to submit to polygraph examinations in order to assist in treatment, planning, and case monitoring). 34 Furthermore, the fact that the district court did not specify who will bear the expense of paying for the polygraph examination does not make the condition void for vagueness. Nevertheless, consistent with other jurisdictions, we will assume that the appellant is required to contribute to the costs based on his ability to pay. See, e.g., Ebihara, 2002 WL 432378, at .