The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania‘s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.

The post Yatvin a 2020 Super Lawyer – 17th Consecutive Year appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

In 2013, the 8-year-old twins were enrolled as students in the School District. Both girls were non‑verbal, did not recognize danger, and would wander and elope unless constantly supervised.  Everyone agreed that each girl required a 1:1 assistant at all times through the school day, and the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for each child provided for such a full time 1‑1 assistant.  Nonetheless, the District failed to provide the girls with 1:1 assistants for many hours each school day.  Despite Parents repeated requests for full day 1:1 assistant for their daughters, no assignments were made.

On March 7, 2014, there was still no regular 1:1 assistant assigned to either of the twins.  At some point during the day, one of the girls eloped from class and then the school building. School employees were not immediately aware that she had disappeared. When they became aware, a search of the building ensued, but she was not found. Over an hour later, a 911 call was placed by someone who spotted her in a snowy field 7 blocks away from school. She was naked except for her jacket. She was picked up by the police and transported by ambulance to St. Christopher’s Hospital.

The Parents were distraught and outraged.  They consulted attorney Michael Basch, a highly respected Philadelphia special education attorney.  Basch was able to negotiate an agreement with the District whereby the twins were placed in a specialized approved private school setting. In addition, the girls were awarded a substantial amount of compensatory services.

The Parents could have left things there, as their daughters were safe.  However, they needed to know that if their daughters ever returned to public school in Philadelphia they would be protected.  They also wanted to do something to insure that no other parent of a child with special needs would suffer the frustration and fear they experienced. So, they brought in Philadelphia attorney Alan L. Yatvin, of Popper & Yatvin, to file suit in federal court. Yatvin is an experienced litigator of special education, disability and civil rights cases in federal court.

In January 2015, suit was filed against the District seeking damages and injunctive relief relating to the provision of 1:1 assistants.¹ The suit asserted that, in order to save money, the District had a policy and practice of denying, reducing or eliminating 1:1 assistants to children who needed them. In so doing, the suit asserted, the District discriminated against students with disabilities who required, but were denied, full‑time 1:1 assistants, in violation of the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Pennsylvania law.

At the urging of the assigned judge, former United States District Judge Legrome Davis, the  parties began settlement negotiations aimed at addressing problems in the District’s system of identifying students who need 1:1 assistants and, once identified, insuring that the services are actually provided.  In meetings with the District’s then-General Counsel and the Office of Specialized Services, the parties developed systems to insure that IEP teams engage in the  proper analysis of whether students need 1:1 assistants and, once those teams have made that determination, insuring that there is no bureaucratic or financial interference with implementation of those legally binding determinations.

During the course of protracted negotiations the District undertook to improve its systems to recruit, fund and track the assignment of 1:1 assistants, and update its training of special education directors and school based staff on the considerations and role of an IEP team in determining the need for 1:1 assistants.

Finally, the parties reached an agreement that was approved by United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Rice on September 19, 2019.  In the settlement the District agreed:

1. The determination of whether or not a student needs 1:1 adult support is to be made at the school level by the IEP Team.
2. The District’s computerized IEP form was revised to include mandated, detailed questions related to 1:1 issues, and to incorporate a Worksheet for Determining 1:1 Assistance, which the IEP Team must complete if it indicates in the IEP that a 1:1 assistant is required.
3. When a 1:1 assistant is included in a student\’s IEP, the District must ensure that the assignment for a 1:1 assistant is made within ten days, and during the interim period, the school principal must use available resources to provide the services identified in the IEP.
4. In the event the District is unable to assign a 1:1 adult assistant within five school days, the Principal must give notice to parents, and an IEP Team meeting must be held within ten school days.

The settlement also included creation of a trust fund.

In discussing the settlement, Kathleen said: “Of course I’m glad there is a trust fund to help with my daughter’s many needs, but we would not have settled unless there was also a change in the District’s policies regarding 1:1 assistants.  No parent should have to experience the stress and frustration that we did in trying to get the District to provide a 1:1 assistant.  And no parent should ever get a call that their child was unsupervised at school, got lost and placed in grave danger. I hope this lawsuit has made lasting changes for all children with disabilities and their families.”

Since the settlement was finalized in September, IEP teams are better informed about their role in considering and assigning 1:1 assistants, the actual assignments are happening with fewer delays, and the agreed safety net seems to be working.

“The time this litigation took to bear fruit was frustrating,” said Alan Yatvin. “While we didn’t get everything we wanted, at the end of the day, important changes were achieved, and a broken system is now functioning for children in need.”

Yatvin and Basch both noted that Natalie Hess, the District’s Deputy Chief of Specialized Services, deserves much of the credit for this settlement.  “We respect Ms. Hess’ professionalism, hard work, and her ongoing commitment to improving the system for all special needs students who require 1:1 assistants.”

1. KS and SFM v. School District of Philadelphia, E.D.Pa. No. 15-cv-237

The post Litigation helps special needs students in Philadelphia appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

All students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled to receive diabetes related care and attend New York City Department of Education schools.

The case, M.F., et al. v. The New York City Department of Education, et al., was brought by the parents of three New York City public school students with diabetes and the American Diabetes Association, suing as an organizational plaintiff on behalf of its members who who include children with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes who attend New York City Department of Education (DOE) schools and their parents.

Popper & Yatvin partner Alan L. Yatvin is counsel for the American Diabetes Association, along with Sarah Fech-Baughman, Director of Litigation at the Association. The federal class action lawsuit filed on November 1, 2018, alleges that the New York City public schools routinely deny students with diabetes necessary services, even excluding them from some school activities altogether, in clear violation of their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.  The suit was brought to address systemic failures, to ensure that students with diabetes can attend school safely and have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages.  Rather, the lawsuit seeks an immediate overhaul of the DOE’s systemic policies and practices governing the delivery of diabetes-related care to ensure that all students with diabetes receive appropriate care and can participate in all school programs.

In granting class certification, Judge Gershon concluded that the three children and their parents, along with the American Diabetes Association, met the requirements for class representatives and sufficiently represented the class of approximately 2000 students with diabetes in DOE schools.   As a result, she appointed the families and the American Diabetes Association as class representatives. Yatvin’s co-counsel, attorneys for Disability Rights Advocates, were appointed class counsel.

Alan L. Yatvin is a former national chair of legal advocacy for the Association, and a former member of the Association’s national board of directors.  He is a co-author of Diabetes Care in the School Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and Care of Young Children With Diabetes in the Child Care Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, both of which were published in the journal Diabetes Care.  He frequently represents students with diabetes and their parents and speaks on the rights of students with diabetes to groups of parents, medical professionals, lawyers, educators and legislators.

The post Court grants class certification in suit against New York Department of Education on behalf of students with diabetes. appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania\’s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.  2019 marks Yatvin’s 36th year as an attorney.

The post Yatvin a 2019 Super Lawyer appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”), the American Diabetes Association (“ADA”), and Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin are suing the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and other New York City agencies for their systemic failure to ensure that students with diabetes can attend school safely and have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. This constitutes a clear violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

By law, the DOE is required to develop a diabetes-care plan for all students with diabetes. These plans include protocols for measuring a student’s blood sugar, administering insulin, and planning for emergencies—necessary accommodations for anyone with type 1 diabetes. But these care plans are rarely ready by the first week—or even first few months—of the school year. Even after the plans are in place, students continue to miss critical instructional time when they are unnecessarily removed from the classroom for diabetes-related care that could be provided in the classroom. Frequently, the DOE refuses to extend these accommodations to after-school programs, field trips, and other academic enrichment opportunities, as the law requires. Their parents are often required to attend school or programs to provide care themselves.

Plaintiffs the American Diabetes Association and several children with diabetes who attend public schools in New York City and their parents, are suing to remedy this unjust and discriminatory situation. The DOE estimates that at least 2,000 students with diabetes attend New York City public schools. By law, the DOE’s obligations to these students are very clear: Provide routine and necessary diabetes-related care for students with diabetes in the appropriate setting based on the individual preferences and needs of the child, as well as during nonacademic and extracurricular activities, regardless of whether those activities occur before, during, or after the school day. Shifting the burden of care to parents during the school day or school-related activities is unacceptable.

“We filed this class action lawsuit for not only our son, but to see positive change for all children with diabetes in New York City public schools,\” said plaintiff Yelena Ferrer. \”We greatly appreciate school staff’s effort to provide day to day care for our son, but the wide ranging problems with the DOE have not allowed for our son and many others to be safe at school.”

“Diabetes care is routine but absolutely critical for a child to be safe at school,’” Sarah Fech-Baughman, Director of Litigation at the ADA, said. “Excluding a child from class time or an academic enrichment opportunity, such as a field trip, because they have diabetes is harmful, stigmatizing, and unlawful. The ADA is standing up for all children with diabetes in New York City public schools to fix these system-wide problems.”

Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages. Rather, the lawsuit seeks an immediate overhaul of the DOE’s systemic policies and practices governing the delivery of diabetes-related care to ensure that all students with diabetes receive appropriate care and can participate in all school programs.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Yatvin, who is serving as co-counsel for the American Diabetes Association in the suit, is a former national chair of legal advocacy for the Association, and a former member of the Association\’s national board of directors.  He is a co-author of Diabetes Care in the School Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and Care of Young Children With
Diabetes in the Child Care Setting: A Position Statement of the
American Diabetes Association, both of which were published in the journal Diabetes Care.  He frequently represents students with diabetes and their parents and speaks on the rights of students with diabetes to groups of parents, medical professionals, lawyers, educators and legislators.

The post Yatvin co-counsels suit against New York Department of Education on behalf of students with diabetes. appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania‘s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.  2018 marks Yatvin’s 35th year as an attorney.

The post Yatvin a 2018 Super Lawyer appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Court had previously found that Ridley had shirked its responsibility under the IDEA to fund Emily’s “stay-put” placement at the Benchmark School.  This time Yatvin was arguing that Emily’s parents were entitled to recover their attorney’s fees as “prevailing” parties under the IDEA.

On August 22, 2017, a three judge panel unanimously ruled in favor of Emily’s parents, concluding that they were, in fact, prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees because they had required Ridley to fund Emily’s educational placement. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court to determine the amount of those fees.

In a nod to Yatvin’s work, the Court of Appeals wrote in the final footnote:

“[W]e note that the litigation here was conducted by highly qualified and experienced counsel and was itself extensive and protracted…”  M.R. v. Ridley School District, footnote 9.

Read more about the history of this case in our prior post:  Yatvin defeats certiorari in U.S. Supreme Court, preserves special education victory.

The post Court of Appeals agrees with Yatvin on student’s right to attorney’s fees appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania‘s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.

The post Yatvin a 2017 Super Lawyer appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

One of the unintended consequences of the proliferation of charter schools is that, unlike public school districts, they can easily go bankrupt or lose their charter and close. While such closures are painful for all the enrolled students and their families, already vulnerable students with educational disabilities are especially exposed. Not only must they often find an alternative placement on short notice, but there will frequently be a lag in provision of services at their new school. Because these closures are rarely telegraphed in advance, timing often renders the option of other charter schools or special admission public schools unavailable.

Another consequence of such closings is the complicating of avenues for challenging decisions of those school that continue to dog special needs students.  If a charter school makes an agreement with a parent, then disappears, what is the parent to do? If a charter school fails to identify or inadequately identifies a child’s disability, or owes a child compensatory education for services not provided, how does a parent pursue the traditional administrative processes for relief? And how do parents without resources get a lawyer to help them?

On December 5, 2016, those questions were answered in a case brought by Popper & Yatvin partner Alan L. Yatvin: R.V. Individually and on Behalf of S.V-W., a Minor, v. Pedro A. Rivera, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, E.D.Pa. Civil Action No. 16-2277.

S.V-W. attended the Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School (Palmer) from 2007 until the school became insolvent and closed in December 2014, in the middle of the school year. His mother sought the advice of an attorney because S.V-W. had been struggling at Palmer and had not received special education services. That attorney, Daniel Cooper, concluded that Palmer had violated the “child find” provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which require publicly funded schools to identify and program for all children with disabilities in need of special education.¹

Ordinarily, Dan would have reached out to the school and attempted to resolve the dispute, and if that didn’t work out, he would have filed a complaint seeking an administrative “due process” hearing to resolve the issues. But in this case, Palmer was closed and insolvent. So, in addition to filing a due process complaint against Palmer, Dan also filed a due process complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). Under the IDEA, PDE bears responsibility for providing special education and related services when a school cannot or will not do so.²

But instead of stepping in and agreeing to provide compensatory education for services the child had been denied, PDE took the position that it should not be a party to the administrative proceedings. PDE further stated that it intended to provide compensatory services only if the hearing officer determined they were due. Based upon this representation, the special education hearing officer dismissed the PDE from the administrative process.

This left Dan to engage in the process of fully litigating the claims on behalf of S.V-W., with no one across the table. So he did his research, gathered documents, prepared witnesses, and presented evidence at a two hour due process hearing. Several weeks later the hearing officer issued his decision, finding that Palmer had failed to comply with its obligations to this child, resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The hearing officer concluded that S.V-W. was entitled to a full day of compensatory education equal to every school day for two years. At that point, the PDE agreed to honor the decision and provide the compensatory services. What PDE would not do, however, is honor the IDEA’s attorney’s fees provision.³

The IDEA, like other civil rights laws, contains an attorney’s fees provision to insure that the courthouse doors are not closed to those being denied their rights and the protections of the law, just because they cannot afford to hire an attorney. Under those provisions, persons, like S.V-W.’s mother, who prevail on their claims, are entitled to have the other side pay their reasonable attorney’s fees. But by getting itself dismissed from the administrative action, even though it forced the action to proceed to conclusion before PDE would fulfill its obligation to provide the services Palmer had denied, PDE was able to claim it was not a party and therefore was not obligated to pay for the work it had caused Dan Cooper to perform in putting on a hearing.

So Dan contacted Popper & Yatvin.  Alan filed suit in federal court asserting that PDE was a proper party to the administrative proceedings, and since parent was a prevailing party, PDE was liable for her attorney’s fees. The PDE then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, to which Alan responded. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone heard oral argument on November 2nd, and on December 5th she issued her decision denying PDE’s motion to dismiss. The Judge agreed with Alan that PDE was a proper party to the administrative proceedings and that PDE is responsible for payment of attorney’s fees to prevailing parent.

The parameters of PDE’s role when charter schools close is a recently evolving issue. Because of the large number of charter schools in the Philadelphia area, there have recently been three other such cases, involving different or limited factual circumstances.⁴ The PDE has made clear that it intends to vigorously contest these cases and seek adjudication of these issues in the Court of Appeals.

The decision in this case represents the broadest and clearest statement that PDE stands in the shoes of defunct charter schools when it comes to the rights and remedies of students with disabilities, including payment of attorney’s fees to prevailing parents. Popper & Yatvin is pleased to have helped add to the body of the law on this subject, and will continue to empower parents by assuring their access to the resources needed to defend the rights of their children with disabilities.

1. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A).
2. 20 U.S.C. § 1413(g).
3. The IDEA provides that a district court may, in its discretion, award “reasonable attorneys’ fees” to the parents of a child with a disability who is a “prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I).
4. Attorney David Berney, who has also been litigating issues relating to PDE obligations when charter schools close, is to be complimented on his own success in the district court.

The post Protecting special needs students when charter schools close appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

In court and culture, ‘Miranda’ endures

Alan L. Yatvin is a partner at Popper & Yatvin in Philadelphia

On Jan. 31, 1976, Ernesto Arturo Miranda died of stab wounds suffered in a fight over a card game in a dive bar in Phoenix. His passing made for a few lines in papers across the country.

The mother of law professor Charles Whitebread clipped the story and sent it to her son with the note “Isn’t it a shame, after all he did for us.” What he did for us is lend his name to a landmark June 13, 1966, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona.

In 1963, when Miranda was arrested in Arizona as a suspect in three rape/attempted-rape cases, suspects being questioned in police custody had the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney even if they could not afford one. What was not so clear, though, was whether the police had to explicitly tell a suspect of those rights before questioning.

Miranda agreed to be placed in a lineup. Two witnesses identified him but were not certain. When he asked how he did after the lineup, the police allegedly told him not very well, whereupon Miranda confessed. He was convicted, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his 20-to-30-year sentence.

A volunteer lawyer for Miranda filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to take the appeal. The justices agreed to hear Miranda’s case, along with cases raising the same issues from New York, California, and Missouri. Because Miranda’s appeal was listed first, the decision is known by his name. (If the court had listed the New York case first, police could be giving suspects their Vignera rights.)

The consolidated case drew more than a dozen briefs, running hundreds of pages. Ten lawyers argued for more than seven hours, over three days. Former Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor argued for New York and, by special leave, for the attorneys general of 27 states, plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Civil rights icon Anthony Amsterdam filed a brief on behalf of the ACLU.

On June 13, 1966, the second-to-last opinion day of the Supreme Court’s term, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Miranda warnings were born. From that day forth, prior to questioning a suspect in custody, police read those now-familiar rights, containing the key elements of Warren’s decision:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”

Like no other area of the law before or since, the Miranda warnings took off. They became part of standard police procedure nationwide, often routinely recited upon arrest, even when there was no intention to question. The warnings also quickly became part of the popular culture. A year later, the popular police series Dragnet featured Jack Webb’s Sgt. Joe Friday and his partner routinely reading suspects “their rights.”

In 2000, the Supreme Court considered whether to overrule Miranda. It is apparent from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion in Dickerson v. United States that he would not have sided with Warren’s 1966 opinion. However, unlike dissenters Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Rehnquist concluded that Miranda was deserving of stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided”).

The chief justice noted that “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.” As even the National District Attorney’s Association conceded in a friend of the court brief: “[W]arnings are generally advisable when questioning criminal suspects, and should be embodied in police practices. . . .”

Certainly Miranda at 50 no longer has all of its vitality. If a suspect’s lawyer tells the police the client wishes to remain silent, police don’t have to let that lawyer into the room or stop questioning if the suspect has agreed to speak after Miranda warnings. Even if a statement is inadmissible due to a Miranda violation, some evidence obtained as a result of that statement may be admissible. A statement obtained in violation of Miranda can still be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand in his own defense.

There is also an exception for public safety. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided a trio of cases further narrowing the rule of Miranda, declaring: A suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after release from custody; and police need not explicitly tell suspects they have a right to counsel during questioning. In the third case, the court stated that suspects must unambiguously announce to police that they wish to remain silent. Or, to paraphrase the irony noted in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, a suspect must break his or her silence to invoke the right to that silence and stop police questioning.

Whitebread, the professor whose mother mourned Miranda’s passing, believed the Supreme Court would never reverse Miranda. On the 20th anniversary of Miranda, he said:
“Too many Americans watch television. Everyone knows that when they get arrested they have some rights. They might not know what they are exactly, but they know they have them. This court, no court, wants to be known as the court that took away America’s rights.”

After the conviction was reversed in 1966, the Arizona prosecutor retried Miranda with other evidence, including a confession to his live-in girlfriend. Miranda was convicted in the second trial. He served a total of 11 years in prison before being paroled. After his release, he allegedly got police officers to give him Miranda warning cards, which he supposedly autographed and sold for a few dollars each.

And the men suspected of stabbing Ernesto Miranda 40 years ago? Each was read Miranda warnings, waived his right to counsel and right to remain silent, and agreed to be interviewed by detectives.

Published: June 12, 2016 — 3:01 AM EDT The Philadelphia Inquirer

The post Inquirer publishes Yatvin commentary on Miranda Decision’s 50th Anniversary appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.