People v. Ruch, 2016 CO 35

Ruch was convicted of stalking a 15‑year‑old; acquitted of sexual assault. Sentenced to 90 days jail and six years intensive supervision probation (ISP).
After sentencing the court added sex‑offender conditions: a polygraph and participation in sex‑offense‑specific treatment; Ruch objected, citing Fifth Amendment concerns while his direct appeal was pending.
Probation rules allowed denials in treatment for the first three months; continued denial could trigger a revocation complaint. The court overruled Ruch’s objection and ordered the conditions; Ruch signed an agreement to them.
Ruch refused to enroll or participate in treatment, asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege; the probation department filed a revocation complaint alleging multiple violations, including failure to enroll.
The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Ruch to four years in DOC. A division of the court of appeals reversed as to the treatment refusal, holding Ruch had validly invoked the Fifth Amendment and that revocation on that ground violated his rights; it remanded to assess whether revocation would have occurred on the remaining violations.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the division, holding Ruch’s blanket refusal was premature and ineffective and that revocation for total refusal to participate was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ruch)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether a blanket refusal to attend sex‑offender treatment is a valid Fifth Amendment invocation	Ruch: Anticipatory blanket refusal protects against compelled incrimination while appeal pending	People: Blanket, preemptive refusal is improper; privilege must be claimed in response to specific questions	Held: Blanket refusal was premature and ineffective; not a proper invocation
Whether revoking probation for refusing treatment violated the Fifth Amendment	Ruch: Revocation penalized exercise of Fifth Amendment and coerced self‑incrimination	People: Revocation was based on failure to comply with probation condition, not a penalty for invoking a valid privilege	Held: Revocation was lawful because refusal was not a proper privilege assertion
Whether requiring attendance or evaluation is itself incriminating	Ruch: Treatment requirement could force admissions used against him	People: Mere requirement to attend is not incriminating absent specific compelled testimony	Held: Requiring attendance or evaluation alone is not self‑incriminating
Whether double jeopardy or acquittal affects privilege for related questions	Ruch: Concern that treatment questions could relate to acquitted charge	People: Acquittal precludes retrial on that charge; answers about that charge cannot incriminate	Held: Questions about acquitted charge could not be used to reprosecute; Fifth Amendment concern on that count was overstated

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (Fifth Amendment applied to the states via Fourteenth Amendment)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (probationers retain Fifth Amendment rights; states may require probation‑related disclosures without self‑executing privilege)
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (privilege applies to official questions in other proceedings if answers might incriminate)
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (privilege generally must be asserted when specific questions are asked; anticipatory blanket claims are improper)
People v. Porter, 348 P.3d 922 (Colo. 2015) (double jeopardy bars reprosecution after acquittal)
People v. Austin, 412 P.2d 425 (Colo. 1966) (privilege is an option to refuse, not a prohibition on inquiry)
Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1990) (blanket assertions of privilege in advance are invalid)
United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682 (8th Cir. 1973) (blanket refusals to answer are unacceptable)