Opinion ID: 4553266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Von Behren

Text: Against this backdrop, we turn to an examination of Von Behren to explain why there was no Fifth Amendment violation. In 2005, Von Behren was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to 121 months in prison and three years of supervised release for receipt and distribution of child pornography. In 2014, as Von Behren neared supervised release, the probation office petitioned to modify his release conditions to include a requirement to participate in and successfully complete an approved sex offender treatment program that “complied with standards mandated by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB),” which had been directed to “develop[] and implement[] statewide standards for the assessment, evaluation, treatment, and behavioral monitoring of adult sex offenders.” 822 F.3d at 1142. One of the standards implemented by SOMB required treatment providers to “conduct sexual history polygraphs.” Id. To that end, Von Behren’s provider “presented [him] with a non-negotiable treatment agreement [that] required [him] to complete a non-deceptive sexual history polygraph in order to advance through the program.” Id. The consequence of “[f]ailure to complete the sexual history polygraph” was “removal from the program.” Id. Further, the agreement contained a provision concerning use of information gained by the provider regarding any crimes 11 committed by Von Behren: “I hereby instruct [the provider] to report to any appropriate authority or authorities any occurrence or potential occurrence of any sexual offense on my part regardless of how [the provider] gains knowledge of such occurrence or potential occurrence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Von Behren objected to the modification on the grounds that the requirement to complete a sexual history polygraph violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The district court sustained his objection and “modified [the] release conditions to exclude any requirement that he admit to a criminal offense other than his offense of conviction.” Id. at 1142-43. Nonetheless, a few months later, Von Behren’s provider told him he would need to submit to a sexual history polygraph that included four mandatory questions “or leave the program.” Id. at 1143. The mandatory questions were: 1. After the age of 18, did you engage in sexual activity with anyone under the age of 15? 2. Have you had sexual contact with a family member or relative? 3. Have you ever physically forced or threatened anyone to engage in sexual contact with you? 4. Have you ever had sexual contact with someone who was physically asleep or unconscious? Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Von Behren filed an emergency motion to block the exam. The district court reviewed the proposed questions, denied the motion, and ordered Von Behren to complete the sexual history polygraph. “Specifically, the court noted [there was no 12 incrimination because the] answers would not specify the time, the place, the identity of any victim, or other people involved.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). Next, Von Behren filed an immediate appeal and asked the district court to stay its order. The court denied the stay motion. We granted Von Behren’s motion for an emergency stay of the polygraph and ultimately reversed. Among other things, we held Von Behren was being asked to incriminate himself because although “[a]n affirmative answer to any of [the four mandatory questions] could not support a conviction on its own, . . . [t]he Fifth Amendment [was] triggered [because the answers] would provide a lead or a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the speaker.” Id. at 1145 (internal quotation marks omitted).