I respectfully dissent

I am not surprised that North Carolina is losing track of sex offenders. State law requires many convicted sex offenders to register with county sheriff and provide a current address. Failure to register is separate crime that can lead to sentences of anywhere from 1-3 years imprisonment.

Most of my criminal defense clients have pretty chaotic lives. They often live with relatives, girlfriends or friends and those relationships are often volatile. If they lose their place to live, often the last thing on their mind is changing the registration. If the sex offender goes missing, how much resources is law enforcement supposed to spend tracking them down? It is not like there aren't people who are wanted for new wrongdoing . If an officer has a choice between tracking a burglary suspect or a sex offender who has dropped off the radar, I think he will track the burglar.

I'm not fanatically opposed to sex offender registration or even requiring locator devices in some circumstances. But I think we overestimate how much good it will really do.

My job could get a lot easier in a few years when that pesky exclusionary rule is gone. I can put the 4th Amendment in the little file where I keep the 6th Amendment speedy, public trial right. The file is labeled "illusory constitutional rights."

While the official holding of Hudson v. Michigan is that suppression is unavailable when police who have a warrant enter without knocking (which the court previously ruled was constitutionally required). Everything that the majority said is bad about the exclusionary rule in Hudson applies pretty equally anytime the exclusionary rule is used. The starkest sign for me that the exclusionary rule's days are limited is Kennedy's concurrence where he wrote:

... the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt. (link)

First of all, that is an opinion signed by exactly one Supreme Court Justice. Second the fact that he felt as though it needed to be stated strikes me as a case of "the justice doth protest too much."

A constitutional right without a remedy is a platitude. Knock and announce is now a platitude, a sort of social nicety which, when ignored, has no real consequence. I mentioned speedy trial earlier because it frequently comes up in conversations with my clients when I tell them how long they will have to wait in jail for a trial. They say "what about my right to a speedy trial?" I tell them that speedy trial rights in North Carolina are unenforceable. Yes the state and federal constitutions say you have a right to a speedy trial. However the enforcement mechanism is so stacked against defendants that is practically impossible to get anything that remotely resembles a "speedy trial."

One day I'll have to make the same speech about suppression motions for any evidence seized in violation of the Constitution.

To any potential clients in a criminal case:

If you want me to get you a decent plea bargain, don't confess. See that officer there, his job is to put people like you in prison. If you admit to him that the drugs and gun are yours I will probably not be able to get you a good deal. It is especially harmful to your case to write out a confession and sign it. The right to remain silent is important, exercise it.

If I tell you the minimum sentence is 10 years, that means the judge cannot give you less than 10 years. It does not mean 85% of 10 years. It does not mean "up to 10 years." It does not mean you are eligible for probation. While the law can be complicated at times, at others it is brutally simple.

If I tell you that 9 times out of 10 judges and jurors will believe the cops' version of what happened over yours, it does not mean I'm "in with the DA."

I do not have time to make you understand all aspects of criminal law, evidence law and constitutional law. I spent a lot of time in law school and since learning about those things. It is a waste of time for you and I to debate whether the fact that your cousin talked to someone who heard that the victim recanted is hearsay.

"It's just he said, she said," is not a defense to any crime. Quite a few convictions are based on nothing but "she said."

Another rant here.

From an order I got via e-mail:

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to designate location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 105). Upon consideration of the Motion – the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts – it is

ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of “rock, paper, scissors.” The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006. If either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed and a hearing will be held at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 2006 before the undersigned in Courtroom 3, George C. Young United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 80 North Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2006.