Morris Singer

On Tuesday night, President Brack Obama called for compulsory school attendance across the nation. But simply making school attendance mandatory is to overlook a real blight on our system of secondary education.

In Massachusetts, where I practice law, a child who is expelled from her school is denied the ability to attend any school in the entire state. Ever.  It seems draconian, shocking, and unbelievable.

But it's true.

In an earlier blog post, I stated that the Supreme Court held that a warrant is required to put a GPS device on someone's car.  I was wrong.  Turns out, however, I was in the company of many people talking about the decision.

There must be a variety of theories as to why Miranda Rifenburgh abandoned her children on January 14. But regardless of why, the more important question is what now for Rifenburgh? Criminal charges will be the least of her worries.

No doubt New Hampshire's Department of Children, Youth & Families have filed a care-and-protection case against Rifenburgh. What will follow is a case that Rifenburgh is unfit to care for her children. Then, a judge could find her children in need of care and protection, or even terminate her parental rights forever.

Here's an idea: stick a GPS on someone's car and track their every movement.

And how about this one: do this without getting a warrant.

That's what the police did to track the movement of drug trafficker Antoine Jones, and their shortcut around the United States constitution is probably going to cost them a conviction.

The Governor of Massachusetts has made it a status offense for a child to engage in acts of sexual exploitation.

In November, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law “An Act Relative to the Commercial Exploitation of People.” The law creates a new category of Child in Need of Services cases for “sexually exploited children”. It also imposes new requirements on DCF and mandated reporters regarding the reporting of children alleged to be victims of sexual exploitation. The law becomes effective February 19, 2012.

It may seem obvious, but when negotiating a plea deal on a drug possession charge, you will want to make sure you tell the judge what drugs the defendant possessed. It is also important to make sure the judge gets that information right.

Otherwise, you might find the judge has accepted a plea deal and sentencing recommendation, only to take it back on his own motion to revise and revoke. And a judge won't take kindly to a prosecutor's claim that the judge is trapped in his decision based on a mistake.

Apparently the justices of the Supreme Court like to have their cake and eat it too. Or, so it seems from today's opinion on identifications in criminal cases.

In an eight-to-one opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States today limited a criminal defendant's right to challenge an eyewitness's claim that he saw the defendant commit a crime. The case, Perry v. New Hampshire [pdf], involves a pre-trial procedure challenging an eyewitness identification through a motion to suppress.

Motions to suppress identification have the effect, if granted, of preventing evidence of an out-of-court identification from ever reaching a jury at a trial. At times, they may even have the effect of preventing an eyewitness from identifying a defendant during the trial as the perpetrator of the crime.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Supreme Court added to its list the case of Jardines v. Florida [pdf].

This means that the Supreme Court must decide whether using a drug-sniffing dog on the outside of a person's home without a warrant violates the right to be safe from unreasonable searches, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal summarized.