Opinion ID: 3013492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-

Text: Incrimination Appellant argues that the polygraph condition of supervised release violates his Fifth Amendment right due to the potential for self-incrimination. According to Lee, the examiner could ask the appellant about prior uncharged offenses or other potentially incriminating conduct. Thus, Lee claims that the mandatory polygraph examination would place him in a situation in which he would be compelled to incriminate himself by providing the government with information that could be used against him. The government, on the other hand, contends that the Fifth Amendment provides no protection against answering questions when the answers pose no realistic threat of future criminal prosecution, even if the answers could serve as the basis for a revocation of supervised release for an offense on which appellant has already been convicted. In pertinent part, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Fifth Amendment as it relates to a probationer in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1986), and reiterated that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies not only at criminal trials, but in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate [the defendant] in future criminal proceedings. Id. at 426 (citation omitted). In Murphy, the Court examined the level of compulsion inherent in the relationship between a probation officer and a defendant.2 According to the Court, the general obligation to appear at a probation interview and answer questions truthfully did not in and of itself transform the defendant’s otherwise voluntary statements into compelled ones. Thus, the probationer’s answers were not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment unless the probationer was required to answer over his valid claim of the _________________________________________________________________ 2. Murphy, however, did not involve a polygraph condition. 5 privilege. Id. at 427. The Court made clear, however, that the state could not constitutionally carry out a threat to revoke probation for the legitimate exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. at 438. The issue in Murphy was whether the release conditions merely required the defendant to appear at the probation interview and discuss matters relevant to his probationary status or whether they went further and required the defendant to choose between making incriminating statements and jeopardizing his conditional liberty by remaining silent. Id. at 436. After a careful analysis, the Court held that the state did not attempt to take the extra, impermissible step of compelling the probationer to incriminate himself. Defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege, therefore, was not self-executing. Id. As such, defendant’s failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, absent compulsion, constituted a waiver of his Fifth Amendment right. In the instant case, appellant argues that the added factor of the polygraph condition would substantially increase the coercive nature of the probation proceeding.3 Specifically, Lee claims that his situation differs from that in Murphy because (1) he would be physically restrained by being attached to a polygraph machine; and (2) a former police officer would be administering the polygraph test.4 Thus, appellant contends that these additional factors _________________________________________________________________ 3. A polygraph test typically measures a person’s physiological reactions to various questions asked by the examiner. The physiological signals include blood pressure, perspiration, and respiration. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313-14 n.9 (1998). Three categories of questions are commonly asked of probationers who are attached to polygraph machines: direct accusatory questions concerning the matter under investigation, irrelevant or neutral questions, and more general ‘control’ questions concerning wrongdoing by the subject in general. Id. The polygraph examiner determines the person’s truthfulness by comparing the physiological responses to each set of questions. Id. 4. At the sentencing hearing, Probation Officer Durkin indicated to the court that this was the first time that the probation department would be implementing the polygraph condition and that it was planning on utilizing a former Delaware State Police Officer to perform the polygraph