and Submitted October 2, 2017 Seattle, Washington
from the United States District Court for the District of
Montana, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00012-SPW-1 Susan P. Watters,
District Judge, Presiding
A. Merchant II (argued) and Joslyn Hunt, Assistant Federal
Defenders; Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Defender; Federal
Defenders of Montana, Billings, Montana; for
David Sullivan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney;
Leif M. Johnson, Acting United States Attorney; United States
Attorney's Office, Billings, Montana; for
Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Richard R. Clifton, and John B.
Owens, Circuit Judges.
panel affirmed the district court's judgment revoking the
defendant's supervised release based on the
defendant's admissions during mandatory sex-offender
panel held that a proceeding to revoke supervised release is
not a criminal case for purposes of the Fifth Amendment
against self-incrimination, and that the district court
therefore did not violate the defendant's right against
self-incrimination by revoking his supervised release based
on his admissions.
CLIFTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
issue in this case is whether admissions made during
mandatory sex-offender treatment may be used against a
defendant to revoke supervised release. Answering that
question requires us to consider whether a proceeding to
revoke supervised release is a "criminal case" for
purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against
on supervised release, Andrew Hulen violated various
conditions of his release. He admitted those violations
during sex-offender treatment, in which he was required to
participate as a condition of his release. Based on those
admissions, he was terminated from treatment, and the
district court revoked his supervised release. Hulen argues
that the use of his statements against him in the revocation
proceeding by the district court violated his right against
self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. We hold that
the district court did not violate Hulen's right against
self-incrimination because that right extends only to
prohibit the use of an admission in a criminal case. A
proceeding to revoke supervised release is not a criminal
case for purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of
the district court.
time of the events alleged in this case, Hulen was serving a
five-year term of supervised release that followed twelve
months of imprisonment for failure to register as a sex
offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). As a
condition of his ...