In OneLaw’s September newsletter, Attorney Chris Connolly discusses a recent success in a criminal case with a Motion to Suppress, and Attorney Peter Hahn reviews what happens when a school attempts to graduate a student who is not receiving a free appropriate public education.

Read the full September 2024 newsletter HERE.

A text version is below.

—

Back to school is in full swing with beautiful weather to cap off the summer. The Red Sox are hanging on, the Patriots won their first game, and the Celtics and Bruins will be playing as soon as you know it. This month Attorney Chris Connolly writes about a recent success in a criminal case where he won a Motion to Suppress. I take a look at an interesting piece of special education law – what happens when a school attempts to graduate a student but the student is not receiving a free appropriate public education. OneLaw is dedicated to serving the personal legal needs of families and individuals across a variety of practice areas. Let us know how we can help you. Visit our website (https://www.one-law.us) or give us a call at 617-831-4355.

Peter A. Hahn, Esq.

Principal Attorney

—

Special Education & Graduation

by Peter A. Hahn, Esq.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees students with disabilities special education until their 22nd birthday or until they graduate from high school with a regular diploma. In Massachusetts, graduating with a diploma typically means achieving the competency determination standard by passing MCAS requirements and meeting local graduation requirements as established by the school district. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that IDEA compels school districts to provide special education students a free appropriate public education (FAPE) with an appropriately ambitious and challenging IEP reasonably calculated to allow the student to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances. There can be times when school districts say a student has graduated and therefore is no longer entitled to special education, but parents disagree and reject such termination and refuse to accept the issuance of a diploma, such as if their child is not making progress on goals, their need for transition services is significant, or there is a denial of FAPE. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary encourages school districts and families to work out the disagreement, either through the Team process or by way of a dispute resolution process such as mediation. Ultimately, if the parties cannot come to an agreement on how to move forward, a parent or school can file a due process complaint and request for hearing at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals seeking a legal decision from a hearing officer regarding the status of the student and school district.

Peter A. Hahn is the Founder and Principal Attorney of OneLaw.

—

A Winning Motion to Suppress

by Chris Connolly, Esq.

I recently prevailed to suppress all evidence against my client obtained via a police search and seizure of his car and person during a roadway stop. In most instances, if the police have violated the constitutional rights of a defendant, the evidence obtained as a direct result of the violation by police is suppressed, which means the evidence cannot be used at trial against the defendant. If evidence is suppressed, this can result in a dismissal of charges or more favorable conditions at trial for a defendant. There are two common issues a defendant usually raises to suppress evidence. A defendant can challenge a search and seizure as unreasonable and argue that his privacy rights were violated. You most commonly hear about this issue when someone talks about their Fourth Amendment rights like the requirement for the police to get a warrant. Searches conducted in the absence of a warrant are presumed to be unreasonable and the government has the burden to persuade a judge otherwise. Another issue is Equal Protection. This is a right of a defendant to be treated fairly and without discrimination by police and other government actors. If a client is targeted at least in part on the basis of a protected class in Massachusetts like race or sexuality, even if by implicit bias by the police, the evidence obtained by the search should be excluded. This can be a difficult issue to litigate, but is most commonly demonstrated by the use of statistics showing disparate treatment by the specific officer as well as inferences from the search itself to force the Commonwealth to try to rebut the inferences of discrimination. I raised in my recent successful case that the evidence against my client should be suppressed due to an unreasonable search and seizure. The state trooper alleged that my client, who spoke no English, committed several traffic infractions, which we challenged. Police have the right to make an inquiry and interact with a motorist if they see a traffic violation or have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, but not if they are acting on a hunch or have insufficient evidence to make the stop. I also challenged the stop for an impermissible exit order from the vehicle. Unlike in federal constitutional rights, drivers and passengers in Massachusetts law have the right to be free from an order to leave a seized vehicle absent a few exceptions including: police are warranted in the belief that the safety of the officers or others is threatened; police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the exit order is proportional to privacy concerns of the defendant to investigate the suspicion; or police are conducting a search of the vehicle on other grounds such as probable cause to search. Simply because the police have made a valid stop and exit order does not necessarily mean the police can search the person or car. The police need even greater evidence support that the police are in danger or that there is evidence of a crime to search you or your car. At each step in the process of the police’s search and seizure, the police actions must follow the law. At OneLaw, we zealously represent our clients, make sure the law is followed, and fight for the best outcome possible.

Attorney Chris Connolly represents clients in education, criminal, juvenile, and civil rights matters for OneLaw.

—

OneLaw represents clients in education, estate planning, residential real estate, civil rights, Juvenile Court, family law, criminal and victim rights, discrimination, special needs planning, guardianship, civil litigation, child welfare, probate administration, Title IX, HPO/RO, and related matters.