Opinion ID: 2978516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supervised-Release Conditions

Text: Massey also challenges his supervised-release conditions, specifically taking exception to Special Conditions 4 and 10. Special Condition 4 requires Massey to “participate in a sex offender assessment and/or other treatment as approved by the probation officer which may include physiological testing such as a polygraph, plesthmograph [sic], and/or ABEL assessment.” Special Condition 10 requires Massey to “report all electronic addresses from which he sends or receives any -9- No. 08-1563 United States v. Massey electronic communications to the Probation Officer. The defendant’s electronic addresses and related accounts will be subject to search . . . .” We do not address the merits of Massey’s claims today, however, because they are not ripe. Cf. United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e hold that the condition of supervised release that [the defendant] challenges is not yet ripe for review.”). In Lee, the defendant challenged his conditions of supervised release, including the use of penile plethysmograph testing. We held that the challenge was not ripe for two reasons. First, the condition implicated only the potential use of the testing; therefore, the defendant might never be subject to penile plethysmograph. Id. Second, the defendant would not be released from prison until 2021 (fourteen years from the date of his challenge). Id. at 450-51. We explained that it is too difficult to predict whether the Probation Office, at that time, will determine that penile plethysmograph treatment is necessary, and “given that the occasion may never arise, [defendant’s] contention that he will actually be subject to penile plethysmograph is mere conjecture.” Id. at 450. The same reasoning applies here. The use of a plethysmograph or an Abel assessment are simply two options that Massey’s probation officer may choose. Thus, like the defendant in Lee, the use of these assessments is optional. Moreover, Massey’s sentence of 360 months puts his future supervised-release conditions even farther into the future than the defendant’s in Lee. It would be “mere conjecture” for this Court to try to define the parameters of Massey’s future supervised-release conditions. Accordingly, Massey’s challenges to Special Conditions 4 and 10 are not ripe for review. - 10 - No. 08-1563 United States v. Massey