United States v. Tiedemann – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and the imposition of special conditions, holding that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to such hearings and the conditions were reasonably related to the offense.
Standard: De novo review for constitutional issues; abuse of discretion for special conditions.
Vote: Unpublished memorandum disposition affirming the district court.
Practical effect: Defendants on supervised release for child sexual abuse material offenses may be required to provide device passwords and submit to polygraph testing and internet monitoring without Fifth Amendment protection in revocation hearings.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the revocation of a defendant's supervised release and the imposition of special conditions related to child sexual abuse material offenses. The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to supervised release hearings and that the district court's conditions were reasonably related to the defendant's crimes.

Background

Defendant Kenneth Daniel Tiedemann appealed the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and the imposition of special conditions. The district court had revoked his release based on his failure to provide a password to his smartphone and imposed conditions restricting internet use, requiring polygraph examinations, and limiting access to explicit content.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the application of the exclusionary rule de novo and found it does not apply to supervised release revocation hearings. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the court held that the right against self-incrimination extends only to criminal cases, not supervised release proceedings. The court affirmed the special conditions, finding they were reasonably related to the crime, involved no greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, and were consistent with Sentencing Commission policy. The court accepted a limiting construction of the internet monitoring condition to apply only to internet-related activities.

The exclusionary rule does not apply to supervised release revocation hearings.

United States v. Hebert, 201 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 2000)

What it means going forward

Defendants on supervised release for child sexual abuse material offenses may be required to provide device passwords and submit to polygraph testing and internet monitoring without Fifth Amendment protection in revocation hearings.