The Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of supervised release conditions requiring that the defendant participate in a sex offense-specific assessment and that, if recommended by a probation officer, he submit to polygraph testing in conjunction with the assessment. In doing so, it explained:
[W]hen we consider a condition of supervised release meant to address a defendant’s history of sexual misconduct, we look to at least two factors. First, as in every case, we consider the burdensomeness of the condition at issue. An assessment is significantly less burdensome than required treatment.
Second, we ask whether the condition is reasonably necessary to accomplish one of the legitimate goals of supervised release. In answering that question in this context, we approach with some skepticism a condition that rests solely on an old sex offense. But when some recent event suggests that a defendant still poses a risk of engaging in sexual misconduct, there exists a greater need for a condition meant to address a defendant’s history of sexual misconduct.
Under this standard, the Court held, "the conditions at issue are not particularly burdensome and because they relate to Defendant’s crime of conviction, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion."
