United States v. McLaurin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20210
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- McLaurin appeals a district court order imposing a sex offender treatment condition that may include penile plethysmography testing as part of supervised release.
- McLaurin was sentenced to 15 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release for violating SORNA by failing to register his Vermont address.
- The district court imposed the plethysmography condition as a standard part of supervision, without specific findings on its therapeutic value or relation to sentencing goals.
- Penile plethysmography involves a device around the penis to measure erection while subject views pornographic material; the procedure is highly invasive and controversial.
- The court holds that the plethysmography condition is unlawful due to its lack of tailoring to statutory sentencing goals and its fundamental liberty intrusion, and vacates and remands for further proceedings.
- The Government provided no demonstrated therapeutic benefit or public-protection justification for the testing, and the district court failed to make defendant-specific findings under Daubert and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is plethysmography an appropriate supervised-release condition? | McLaurin argues it is unduly intrusive and not reasonably related to sentencing factors. | Government contends it is a useful correctional treatment and related to deterrence and public protection. | Yes; not reasonably related and unjustified; condition vacated. |
| Does the test withstand strict scrutiny given a fundamental liberty interest? | McLaurin maintains the liberty interest is high and the test is not narrowly tailored. | Government asserts public-safety and treatment justification. | No; violates substantive due process and not narrowly tailored. |
| Is there a sufficient basis in evidence for treating plethysmography as treatment or deterrence? | Government failed to show therapeutic benefit or reliable efficacy. | Testing allegedly informs treatment and deters future offenses. | Insufficient evidence; not reasonable to impose. |
| Were district court findings required to support this standard condition? | Findings needed about therapeutic benefit, reliability, and alternatives. | Standard condition cited as common practice. | District court failed to make adequate defendant-specific findings; vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (plethysmography reliability and ethical concerns)
- United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2005) (substantive due process and liberty interests in sentencing)
- Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1969) (government cannot control thoughts; rights to thought liberty)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standards for admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence)
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1937) (due process and foundational liberties)