United States v. Begay
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Begay pled guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and related offenses; sentenced in 1996 to 196 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release.
- At sentencing, court imposed standard conditions plus three special conditions including sex offender treatment and prohibition on alcohol.
- Upon nearing March 2010 Navajo Nation relocation, USPO sought to add more special conditions, notably confidentiality waiver, polygraph testing, explicit material prohibition, broad searches, and contact restrictions with minors and victims.
- Government stated polygraph testing would be used as part of sex offender treatment and risk assessment by the USPO.
- Begay agreed to most proposed conditions but objected to polygraph testing; district court imposed all requested conditions including polygraph after a hearing.
- On appeal, Begay challenges the authority to modify without a showing of changed circumstances and the validity of the polygraph condition; the Tenth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to modify without changed circumstances | Begay contends § 3583(e)(2) requires changed circumstances for modification. | Begay argues no such requirement; court may modify based on § 3553(a) factors alone. | No changed-circumstances prerequisite; modification authorized under § 3583(e)(2). |
| Validity of polygraph as a condition | Government asserts polygraph testing aids treatment and risk assessment. | Begay claims polygraph is unreliable and an excessive liberty deprivation. | Polygraph condition upheld; within court’s broad discretion if related to § 3553(a) factors and not overly burdensome. |
| Compliance with procedural requirements | Modification complied with necessary procedures, including hearing and consideration of § 3553(a) factors. | Perhaps procedural, but no substantive barrier shown. | Procedural requirements satisfied; district court acted within authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court may modify conditions based on existing information, not necessarily changed circumstances)
- United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997) (reaffirmed that § 3583(e) does not require new conditions to be unlawful; focus on authority to modify)
- United States v. Pruden, 398 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (§ 3553(a) factors constrain modification of supervised release)
- United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) (condition need only be reasonably related to at least one § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Hanrahan, 508 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2007) (special conditions can include substantial intrusions when justified)