Opinion ID: 4558453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Verification Testing Condition

Text: Birkedahl’s next challenge concerns the verification testing condition, which permits the probation officer to require Birkedahl to take a polygraph examination, CVSA, or other verification test as approved by the court. As a general matter, this Court has upheld the use of verification testing in supervising defendants convicted of sex offenses, recognizing “the strong deterrent value of polygraph conditions” and their ability to “further sentencing objectives such as rehabilitation and deterrence, with reasonably small incremental deprivations of liberty.” United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 112 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Parisi, 821 F.3d at 349 (upholding a condition allowing the use of polygraph, CVSA, or other similar devices); United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272, 278 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, Birkedahl does not dispute the district court’s authority to impose a verification testing condition. Nevertheless, citing the CVSA’s alleged unreliability in detecting deception, Birkedahl seeks to remove the reference to the CVSA from the condition, arguing that its imposition renders the condition not reasonably related to the statutory purposes of supervision. 10 Birkedahl also contends that the district court abused its discretion when it did not hold a hearing to assess the CVSA’s reliability and, as alternative relief, requests remand so that the district court can hold such a hearing. 4 In Birkedahl’s view, because the probation officer or government did not attempt “to rebut the studies” that Birkedahl cited as support for his assertion that the CVSA is unreliable, the court was required to hold a hearing before imposing a condition that included the CVSA as a permissible tool. Birkedahl Br. at 31. To be clear, Birkedahl’s hearing-based challenge does not suggest that it was an abuse of discretion to impose the verification testing condition itself. He merely argues that the district court should not have included the CVSA as a means of carrying out verification testing without first holding a hearing as to its reliability. We disagree, and find 4 In his briefing, Birkedahl insists that he was entitled to a Daubert hearing on the reliability of the CVSA test. But a Daubert hearing relates to the “admissibility of . . . scientific evidence at trial.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 585 (1993) (emphasis added). Needless to say, the form of verification testing that may be required as a condition of supervised release does not turn on whether the results from such a test would be admissible as evidence at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272, 278 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that the fact that “polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence” “does not much bear on the therapeutic value of the tool” to advance sentencing goals). Notwithstanding this misplaced reference to Daubert, we understand Birkedahl to be requesting a hearing regarding the CVSA’s reliability more generally, as related to the appropriateness for inclusion in a supervised release condition. See, e.g., Birkedahl Br. at 30 (arguing that the district court should have held a Daubert hearing to “assess the reliability and necessity of the [CVSA] before permitting its use as a supervisory tool” (emphasis added)). 11 that the reliability of the CVSA is a fact-specific scientific inquiry that is subject to change with the advent of new technology and the passage of time. Accordingly, whether the district court abused its discretion by including the CVSA as a permissible test without first holding a hearing is not ripe for our review. “The ripeness doctrine prevents a federal court from entangling itself in abstract disagreements over matters that are premature for review because the injury is merely speculative and may never occur.” United States v. Balon, 384 F.3d 38, 46 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “Because the ripeness doctrine is drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction, the court can raise it sua sponte, and, indeed, can do so for the first time on appeal.” Thomas v. City of New York, 143 F.3d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In assessing ripeness, we consider two factors – the fitness of the issues on appeal for judicial consideration, and the potential hardship to parties that will result from withholding consideration. Balon, 384 F.3d at 46. Birkedahl’s challenges to the CVSA rest on the premise that the CVSA is so unreliable at detecting deception that it cannot be imposed on Birkedahl, either full-stop, or without further factual development. But where, as here, the necessity 12 or propriety of a supervisory tool hinges on the state of technology available at the time of supervision, we have previously declined to consider challenges to the tool in question on direct appeal prior to the commencement of supervised release. Id. at 47 (stating that where “the necessity of [a given] aspect of [a] special condition” is “essentially a question of technology, it is . . . unripe and should be reconsidered in the future”); see also id. at 48 (instructing the district court “to evaluate the necessity” of the condition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) “in light of the technology existing closer to the time of . . . supervised release”). This is particularly true with respect to rapidly evolving technologies such as computers and software. As we observed in Balon, “changing computer technology is an appropriate factor to authorize” modifications based on “new or unforeseen circumstances” under § 3583(e). Id. at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). And since the CVSA involves precisely such a rapidly changing computer technology, we find that it is inappropriate “to predict the state of [the CVSA’s] computer technology at the commencement of” Birkedahl’s term of supervision. See id. at 40; see also Kelly R. Damphousse, Voice Stress Analysis: Only 15 Percent of Lies About Drug Use Detected in Field Test, NIJ J. Mar. 2008, at 11 n.3, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221502.pdf (noting that the first version of the 13 CVSA test at issue in the study was introduced in 1988 “and has undergone a number of changes and system upgrades over the years”). As such, Birkedahl’s claim that the CVSA is too unreliable for use in supervised release is “distinctly a matter of fact beyond the prescience of this court and is thus currently subject to abstract disagreements over matters that are premature for review.” Balon, 384 F.3d at 46 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, to the extent that the CVSA may advance sentencing goals by encouraging candor, the salience of that objective will also increase or diminish with changes in the technology’s reliability and, relatedly, its cultural currency. See Johnson, 446 F.3d at 277 (explaining that polygraphs may “deter lying notwithstanding its arguable or occasional unreliability because of the subject’s fear that it might work, or be credited by others whether it works or not”); Parisi, 821 F.3d at 349 (noting that verification testing generally could further rehabilitation and deterrence). Though Birkedahl is serving a relatively short sentence of 24 months, his supervised release term nevertheless will not start for nearly a year. In that time, it is likely that the technology at issue may become more sophisticated or that new studies regarding the efficacy of the technology will become available. Indeed, Birkedahl cites in his opening brief two studies, one published in 2002 and one 14 published in 2008, that he asserts support his view that the CVSA is unreliable. But the considerable age of these studies weighs against the fitness of the issues for judicial review now. After all, whatever conclusion we might reach today based on decades-old evidence is even more likely to be superseded by the start of Birkedahl’s supervised release. Moreover, since one of the studies cited by Birkedahl found that a version of the CVSA introduced as far back as 1997 detected deception at a rate comparable to what we have said renders polygraphs a permissible verification tool, it is reasonable to expect that even incremental advances in CVSA technology in the interim will be highly relevant to determining whether, at the time of Birkedahl’s supervision, the CVSA is sufficiently reliable to advance sentencing goals. 5 Accordingly, given that computer technology is often rapidly changing, we are unable to predict whether the CVSA’s use will render the verification testing condition not reasonably related or necessary to the sentencing goals relevant to Birkedahl at the time it may be imposed. See Balon, 384 F.3d at 46. 5Compare Damphousse at 10, 11 (finding the CVSA to yield an average accuracy rate of approximately 50 percent in a field test), with Johnson, 446 F.3d at 278 (noting that because “even the bottom of the range” of polygraph reliability – at “greater-than-50%” – was “still more-likely-than-not, the technology produces an incentive to tell the truth, and thereby advances the sentencing goals”). 15 Turning to the second prong of the ripeness inquiry, we also identify little hardship to the parties that would preclude withholding of judicial consideration at this time. As noted above, “changing computer technology is an appropriate factor to authorize a modification of supervised release conditions under Section 3583(e).” Id. at 47. And since Birkedahl can challenge the CVSA testing condition at any time while he is on supervised release, he will not be disadvantaged by the decision to forego resolution of this technology issue until the commencement of his supervision. Because Birkedahl has not begun his term of supervised release, we can only speculate “at this time whether one method or another, or a combination of methods,” in a technology-dependent condition will be reasonably necessary to further the goals of supervision. Id. at 46. Here, “[t]he [CVSA] technology that holds the key to whether the special condition in this case” is reasonably related to the sentencing factors is subject to change. Id. Accordingly, we decline to reach his arguments. 16