Opinion ID: 3156277
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Polygraph Examinations

Text: The first condition Brewster challenges is the requirement that he “submit to polygraph examinations as a means to insure compliance with program requirements and restrictions.” Every circuit to consider the issue has upheld the imposition of polygraph testing as a condition of supervised release, at least where the circumstances call for it. United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 22-23 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272, 277-78 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Lee, 315 F.3d 206, 213-14 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 261 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Teeple, 447 Fed. App’x 712, 713 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493-94 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 568 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1175-76 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2003). Our sister circuits have found polygraph testing especially appropriate for defendants who have “resisted honest self-assessment” or who have not been candid with the court. See Johnson, 446 F.3d at 278; Wiedower, 634 F.3d at 494. We have also upheld the imposition of polygraph testing as a condition of supervised release over a Fifth Amendment challenge, while noting that a defendant on supervised release retains the ability to invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment to be free from self-incrimination, including in a polygraph examination. See United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2015); cf. United States v. Rainey, 797 F.3d 454, 463 (7th Cir. 2015) (no error in admission of polygraph evidence at revocation hearing where no indication that court weighed this evidence in its decision). The district court did not err in imposing this condition of supervised release to ensure Brewster’s compliance. Despite Brewster’s horrific conduct, he wrote a letter to the court in which he portrayed himself as a good father, even saying that he “took way better care of [his] babies than anyone else.” Brewster also maintained at sentencing that he only molested his older daughter on the occasions documented in videotapes found in his home. The district court very reasonably rejected this contention and credited his daughters’ statements to the contrary. In light of the evidence here, including videotapes, the district court was justified in imposing polygraph examinations as a condition of release in light of Brewster’s lack of “honest self-assessment.” See Johnson, 446 F.3d at 278. We also note that the length of Brewster’s consecutive federal and state sentences means that under current law he would be over the age of ninety-five should he ever be released from prison. At that point, Brewster is free to ask the court under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify or remove the polygraph testing condition if technological advances or other circumstances mean the condition is no longer appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). No. 14-1285 Page 6 2. Prohibition on Frequenting Places Where Minors Congregate and Communication with Minors Brewster also challenges a special condition of supervised release that prohibits him from frequenting certain places and from many communications with minors. The language of the special condition mandates that he shall not frequent places where children under the age of 18 congregate, nor associate or have verbal, written, telephonic or electronic communication with any person under the age of 18, without the permission of the probation officer. This provision does not encompass persons under the age of 18 with whom the defendant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual commercial services. Brewster argues that this condition is overbroad and vague. We have said that while supervised release conditions that bar nearly all contact with minors “may be appropriate in certain circumstances, we caution that these circumstances are less common than the government suggests.” Goodwin, 717 F.3d at 524. Brewster’s abhorrent conduct, however, warrants a ban; he sexually abused and exploited his own young daughters, even repeatedly documenting his abuse of one of his daughters on videotape. Cf. id. (remanding where failure-to-register offense did not involve a child victim and it was unclear why court imposed condition banning contact with minors). The special condition here also includes the explicit caveat that its ban does not apply to minors the defendant might encounter in the ordinary course of business, which distinguishes it from the condition we discussed in United States v. Taylor, 796 F.3d 788, 795-96 (7th Cir. 2015), where the condition did not include such an exception. Brewster also maintains that the condition does not provide him with clear guidance as to where children under the age of 18 “congregate” or what it means to “frequent” a place, and that the condition is therefore vague. We note too that the condition does not contain a scienter requirement. Cf. United States v. Marvin, 2015 WL 2404380, at  (N.D. Ind. May 20, 2015) (modifying similar condition to add “knowingly or intentionally” before the banned conduct). Brewster’s counsel acknowledged that the arguments regarding this condition really only mattered if we were to accept the argument that the sentence was based on erroneous information because then a shorter sentence might be possible, but we rejected that argument. Given the length of Brewster’s sentence, this is not the case to resolve the propriety of this condition of supervised release for all persons. In the vast majority of cases we resolve challenges to supervised release conditions on direct appeal, for reasons including the presence of counsel on direct appeal. Here, though, Brewster was forty-one years old when he was given a thirty-five No. 14-1285 Page 7 year federal sentence, and that was followed by a later-imposed thirty-year state sentence that will run consecutively to the federal one. He will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. In this unique circumstance, we note that if Brewster ultimately is released from prison, he may petition the district court to modify the condition if he then objects to it. See Kappes, 782 F.3d at 859 (declining to set aside no-contact with minor provision that applied to both males and females “[g]iven that Kappes was sentenced to a 20-year term of imprisonment at the age of 47, we think that any violation of his rights by this condition is too contingent to be ripe for review at this time” and that he could petition for modification after release from custody); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).