Opinion ID: 76088
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Polygraph Testing Generally.

Text: 22 Turning to Appellant's challenge to the polygraph testing, we first consider his assertion on appeal that polygraph testing in general is not reasonably related to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Counsel's statement during sentencing that polygraph testing is not a proper condition of supervised release, though perhaps imprecise, adequately conveyed the nature of his objection so as to preserve it for appeal. Therefore, we review the objection for abuse of discretion. See Bull, 214 F.3d at 1278. 23 18 U.S.C. § 3553 directs the sentencing court to consider: 24 (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; [and] 25 (2) the need for the sentence imposed — 26 (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; 27 (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 28 (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 29 (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 30 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court should impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes. Id. 31 The United States Code further states that the district court may impose any condition of supervised release it deems appropriate so long as it comports with the factors enumerated in § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Similarly, the federal Sentencing Guidelines permit the sentencing court to impose any conditions of supervised release that are reasonably related to the § 3553(a) factors, so long as the conditions involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth [in § 3553(a)] and are consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b). 32 We have observed it is not necessary for a special condition to be supported by each factor enumerated in § 3553(a). Rather, each is an independent consideration to be weighed. Bull, 214 F.3d at 1278. Moreover, while the Sentencing Guidelines recognize that a condition of supervised release should not unduly restrict a defendant's liberty, a condition is not invalid simply because it affects a probationer's ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights. See Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362, 1366 (11th Cir.1982). 33 Appellant admitted having severe psychological problems, including an affinity for child pornography. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of thousands of pornographic images depicting children as young as six years old. The district court found it necessary to impose a sentence near the high end of the Guidelines for Appellant's own safety and rehabilitation and the safety of the public. In light of Appellant's crime and personal history, we agree with the district court that he poses a danger to himself and others and is likely to require further rehabilitation upon his release from prison. Under the circumstances, we conclude polygraph testing to ensure compliance with probationary terms is both reasonably related to Appellant's offense and personal history, and when reasonably applied will not unduly burden his rights. Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to generally require Appellant's submission to polygraph testing. See also United States v. Music, 49 Fed.Appx. 393 (4th Cir.2002) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering polygraph testing on supervised release for defendant convicted of possessing child pornography). 34