State v. William Dee Van Komen, Jr., 160 Idaho 534

In 2010 William Van Komen was sentenced for possession with intent to deliver marijuana to five years (2 years fixed, 3 indeterminate) with the court retaining jurisdiction (a "rider").
After an initial rider, the court suspended the sentence and placed Van Komen on five years’ probation; he later admitted other probation violations and was continued on probation with treatment conditions.
In August 2013 Van Komen was alleged to have associated with a 16-year-old and missed drug tests; he admitted associating with the juvenile and failing drug tests, and the court revoked probation but again retained jurisdiction for a rider.
The court ordered a polygraph to determine whether Van Komen used drugs after a certain date and whether he had sexual activity with the 16-year-old; defense counsel advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment right as to sexual-activity questions because answers could prompt felony charges.
At the rider-review hearing Van Komen declined to submit to the polygraph (on Fifth Amendment advice); the court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered him to serve the prison sentence, explicitly citing his refusal to submit to the polygraph.
Van Komen appealed; the Idaho Supreme Court held the court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction based solely on his refusal to submit to questions that could incriminate him violated the Fifth Amendment and remanded for redetermination before a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court violated Van Komen’s Fifth Amendment right by refusing to place him on probation because he would not submit to a polygraph regarding potential felony conduct	State: No Fifth Amendment violation because Van Komen had no liberty interest in probation placement and denial did not extend incarceration	Van Komen: Court’s refusal to suspend sentence because he asserted the privilege improperly penalized him for remaining silent and was coercive	Court: Relinquishing jurisdiction solely because defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment violated the privilege; remand for redetermination before a different judge

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination applies to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) (privilege applies in civil and criminal proceedings where answers might incriminate)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (a convicted defendant does not lose Fifth Amendment protection while on probation; voluntariness affects admissibility)
Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination; voluntariness is relevant)
United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424 (1943) (Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary incriminating testimony)
Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (if compelled testimony is not obtained, Fifth Amendment not implicated in same way)
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (plurality and separate opinions analyzing whether penalties for refusing to participate in treatment programs compel self-incrimination)
Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) (state may not impose substantial penalties for exercising Fifth Amendment right)
State v. Coassolo, 136 Idaho 138 (2001) (Department recommendation after rider is advisory)
State v. Taylor, 142 Idaho 30 (2005) (if retained-jurisdiction period expires without suspension, court loses jurisdiction)
State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81 (2013) (when Idaho Supreme Court grants review of Court of Appeals decision, it hears case anew)