{"id":1379,"date":"2019-06-11T10:22:44","date_gmt":"2019-06-11T15:22:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1379"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:59:22","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:59:22","slug":"mckune-v-lile-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/06\/11\/mckune-v-lile-2002\/","title":{"rendered":"McKune v. Lile (2002)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Respondent was convicted of a sex offense and incarcerated. A few years prior to his scheduled release date, Kansas required him to participate in a treatment program which required — inter alia — disclosure of both charged and uncharged sex offenses. No immunity was offered for these disclosures. A variety of consequences would flow from failing to comply with treatment, including loss of privileges and transfer to a maximum security facility.\u00a0Respondent originally brought suit alleging that the treatment program was unconstitutional, in that it violated his Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. District Court granted summary judgment in his favor, and Court of Appeals affirmed. State then sought review from the United States Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> United States Supreme Court reversed. While there were consequences that stemmed from failing to comply with the treatment program, these consequences were not so severe as to constitute forces that would compel self-incrimination and thus be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n