The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on the authority to interview children at school about claims of sexual assault. The specific issue is whether police and social workers must obtain a warrant before conducting such interviews.

A deputy sheriff and a state social caseworker took the issue of child interviews to the Court in a pair of cases, Camreta v. Greene, et al. (09-1454) and Alford v. Greene, et al. (09-1478). The appeals argue that, because the details of child sex abuse are known only to the victim and the perpetrator, police may not have sufficient evidence to support a warrant, so they need the authority to interview an alleged victim without the parents' presence - often, at school. The Ninth Circuit Court required a warrant, if parents' consent is not obtained or there are no other exigent circumstances. Supreme Court review of the warrant issue was supported by 27 states.

These two cases threaten the collaborative effort developed in many states to have joint CPS/law enforcement investigations that minimize the trauma placed on a child who makes an outcry of abuse. These cases also threaten the children's advocacy center model, which provides a safe place for a child to tell about the abuse.

Serious stuff.

My guess, since it involves the 9th Circuit and the protection of children against sexual abuse, is that the SCOTUS will reverse.

[This message was edited by JB on 10-14-10 at .]

SCOTUS chose to punt the case, saying the conflict was moot because the child was almost 18 and unlikely to face the same problem again.

In addition, SCOTUS noted that the Ninth Circuit really should have avoided deciding any constitutional issue and just decided the case on the narrow ground of immunity.

So, the reasoning of the decision as to its constitutional grounds is withdrawn and has no precedential value.

But it begs the question whether a repeat of this (questioning a child at a child advocacy center without a warrant) is constitutionally acceptable. Surely it is, but we won't know from this case.

Not if you are the suspect.

But if you have enough PC to determine that I am a suspect, then getting a warrant is a simple manner, right?

As an attorney (and in general) I am a pretty lazy person. I only like to do things once, so the one time that I do them I try to do it as best as I can. One thing I hate is when attorneys try to make new law by trying some novel trick or technique. All that does is give the defense issues to raise on appeal and, perhaps, result in a new trial, which then means more work for me.

The time it takes to get a warrant is just a few hours, if that. But it saves endless amounts of headaches and the possibility of losing your case.

It's not like talking to the kid(s) can't wait a bit. If what happened happened, the information will still be there when you get the warrant. Even if you talk to them at the school without the warrant, the incident would have happened hours if not days ago anyways. So a couple more hours isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and what do you do if the school refuses you access to the kids without a warrant? The schools could face liability for letting the interview happen.

I encourage you to learn more about investigating child abuse. I also recommend you read more about the history of children's advocacy centers and why they were created.

A simple outcry of abuse or an anonymous call is often how an investigation begins. Interviewing and protecting children is not handled in the same manner as a narcotics case.

Formalizing a child abuse case by writing a search warrant and notifying everyone of what is about to happen is not a very smart approach, especially if the person who is the target of the investigation is a parent or family member.

Once you have spent more time involved in such investigations and know more about the sensitive issues raised by talking to children and investigating parents/family members, I hope you develop more of an appreciation for the need to provide the child with an immediate and safe environment for telling the truth.