Bennett v. Bigelow
387 P.3d 1016
Utah2016Background
- Brendt Bennett pleaded guilty to one count of child rape and received an indeterminate sentence of six years to life; he was later paroled subject to completing an out‑of‑prison sex‑offender treatment program at the Bonneville Community Correctional Center (BCCC).
- BCCC treatment required written Victim Forms and Victim Narratives and oral therapy disclosures describing sexual history, and included polygraph exams to verify full disclosure; forms and instructions could require names, ages, relationships, locations, frequency, and narrative details.
- During his first BCCC attempt Bennett provided detailed disclosures (including uncharged offenses) and later invoked the Fifth Amendment during polygraph questioning; staff treated his invocations as noncompliance and his first parole was revoked.
- On a second brief parole release Bennett again refused to answer certain disclosure questions invoking the Fifth Amendment; BCCC staff sought a warrant and the Board revoked parole a second time.
- Bennett sought extraordinary relief alleging compelled self‑incrimination and asked the district court to appoint counsel; the court denied appointment and granted the State summary judgment that no Fifth Amendment violation occurred.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment and directed remand, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about whether the BCCC disclosures posed a risk of incrimination and whether parole revocation constituted compulsion; it also held the trial court erred in refusing to reconsider appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court refusal to reconsider appointment of counsel | Bennett argued the court should reconsider and appoint counsel under Utah Code §78B‑9‑109 given factual and legal complexity | State and trial court treated the second request as an improper motion for reconsideration under Rule 54 and denied it | Utah Supreme Court: trial court erred; Rule 54 does not bar reargument prior to final judgment — remand to reconsider appointment of counsel |
| Standing to bring Fifth Amendment claim | Bennett asserted a reasonable probability of injury (parole revocation) traceable to BCCC practices and redressable by court order | State challenged standing but did not press it strongly | Court: Bennett has standing under Utah's Brown test (injury, causation, redressability) |
| Whether BCCC disclosure requirements posed risk of incrimination | Bennett: forms, narratives, therapy and polygraph questions could elicit incriminating information (charged and uncharged acts) | State: program policies allegedly limited identifying disclosures and therefore posed no real risk | Court: genuine factual dispute exists — information requested could reasonably be incriminating; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether parole revocation for invoking Fifth Amendment amounts to compulsion | Bennett: conditioning parole on full disclosure (or losing parole) is a threat rising to compulsion under Fifth Amendment (per Murphy) | State: parole is not a constitutional right; revocation threat is not compulsion and decisions involved staff recommendations, not automatic revocation | Court: threat to revoke parole constitutes compulsion for Fifth Amendment purposes; factual disputes about whether revocation was threatened/used here preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (probationer’s compelled disclosures may be coerced where state implicitly or expressly threatens revocation)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (plurality on in‑prison treatment program; denial of certain in‑prison benefits may not always be unconstitutional compulsion)
- Antelope v. United States, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (probationer’s Fifth Amendment claim justiciable where supervised‑release condition required sexual autobiography that could reveal prosecutable offenses)
- United States v. Von Behren, 822 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2016) (threat of revocation of supervised release tied to polygraph/treatment may constitute compulsion)
- Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1955) (Fifth Amendment protects admissions that may only tend to incriminate; protection construed broadly)
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1975) (privilege extends to information that could furnish a link in the chain of evidence)
- Brown v. Division of Water Rights, 228 P.3d 747 (Utah 2010) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability evaluated at the relevant stage of litigation)