United States v. Angelo Trovato
682 F. App'x 135
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Trovato pled guilty in D. Mass. to travel and Internet-based offenses involving a minor; sentence: 5 years imprisonment and 15 years supervised release.
- At sentencing the Massachusetts court imposed sex-offender conditions (treatment, registration, internet monitoring) but declined to require polygraph testing.
- Supervision transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2011; Trovato voluntarily took one polygraph but later refused further tests.
- The Middle District Probation Office—following its policy requiring polygraphs for convicted sex offenders—petitioned to add periodic polygraph testing to Trovato’s conditions.
- After a hearing the district court granted the modification; Trovato appealed challenging authority, procedural explanation, and proportionality of the condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had authority to modify supervised-release conditions absent changed circumstances | Trovato: No change in circumstances so court lacked authority to add new condition | Gov: Transfer to new jurisdiction is a changed circumstance permitting modification | Transfer of supervision to new district constitutes a change in circumstances; court had authority |
| Standard of review | Trovato: Abuse of discretion | Gov: Plain-error because no proper objection at modification hearing | Court did not decide issue because decision withstands abuse-of-discretion review |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its rationale on the record | Trovato: Court failed to justify imposition of polygraph on record | Gov: Record contains viable bases (offense nature, PSR, prior conduct) supporting condition | Even though more explanation is preferred, appellate court can affirm if a viable basis appears in the record; condition upheld |
| Whether polygraph condition is greater deprivation of liberty than necessary | Trovato: Polygraph imposes excessive liberty intrusion | Gov: Polygraph is not substantially more burdensome than routine reporting and aids supervision/treatment | Condition is reasonably related to §3553(a) factors and not an excessive liberty deprivation; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murray, 692 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.) (transfer to new jurisdiction may justify modification of supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Wilson, 707 F.3d 412 (3d Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion to modify supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 713 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for supervised-release modifications)
- United States v. Maurer, 639 F.3d 72 (3d Cir.) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object)
- United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d 634 (3d Cir.) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Lee, 315 F.3d 206 (3d Cir.) (polygraph results may be used to enhance supervision and treatment)
- United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.) (appellate court may uphold supervised-release conditions if a viable basis exists in the record)