KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7117
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby los blancos » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:42 am

I'm feeling swell about the MBE but I literally think I have a 50% chance of failing due to the essay portion.

Torvon
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Torvon » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:14 am

ndirish2010 wrote:I haven't been wasting my time sending in essays to the graders after my first one was such a joke. All I know is I better pass, because I'm not getting a retaker offer.

138 on final MBE, so I feel a little better about that.


I haven't sent a single essay in to be graded. I figure I can get just as much out of it comparing my answer to the model answer. The only grader's opinion that matters is the one that grades the actually question.

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Doritos » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:25 pm

ndirish2010 wrote:I haven't been wasting my time sending in essays to the graders after my first one was such a joke. All I know is I better pass, because I'm not getting a retaker offer.

138 on final MBE, so I feel a little better about that.


Yeah I haven't sent in an essay since late June, you can just self-grade them. They have the outline and the model answer so you can see what kinds of questions are asked and how to state the rule the right way.

As far as final strategies, with a 138 on the final MBE you should be good. I took that final on Monday, did well, and have been mainly focusing on the essays since. There just seem to be more points on the table with the essays if you are doing well on the MBE side of things.

Also, I don't really understand why someone would take them up on the re-take offer unless money was a big issue. If I go through your course and fail why would I stick with you for another go 'round? I'm going barbri if I fail this thing because I've done (mostly) all the stuff Kaplan told me to and if I fail this thing clearly some fault lies with Kaplan.

dudeman2014
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby dudeman2014 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:00 pm

This question is angering me, I feel like it is honestly a mistake by Kaplan. Can someone please explain.

One afternoon a customer was shopping in a clothing store. The owner was standing behind the front counter ringing up several items for the customer when she suddenly saw another woman walking across the street toward the store. The owner loathed the woman because she had previously stolen merchandise from the store.

Believing that the woman was about to enter the store, the owner hastily ran to the front door and locked it to prevent her entry. The customer witnessed the owner lock the front door and then retreat to a back storage room. The woman tried to enter the store but couldn't get in because the door was locked. A few minutes later, the owner unlocked the front door, finished ringing up the customer's items, and resumed business as usual. The front door was the only entrance and exit of the store.

If the customer sues the owner for false imprisonment, will she prevail?

A) Yes, because she was aware of the confinement.
B) Yes, because the door was locked while the customer was inside the store.
C) No, because the customer did not suffer any physical harm or bodily injury.
D) No, because the owner's actions were directed against the woman, not the customer

The correct answer is A)

A person is subject to liability for false imprisonment if the following three requirements are satisfied: 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the defendant; 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.


WTF KAPLAN THE OWNER DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFINE ANYBODY HE INTENDED TO KEEP SOMEONE OUT.

User avatar
emciosn
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby emciosn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:20 pm

dudeman2014 wrote:This question is angering me, I feel like it is honestly a mistake by Kaplan. Can someone please explain.

One afternoon a customer was shopping in a clothing store. The owner was standing behind the front counter ringing up several items for the customer when she suddenly saw another woman walking across the street toward the store. The owner loathed the woman because she had previously stolen merchandise from the store.

Believing that the woman was about to enter the store, the owner hastily ran to the front door and locked it to prevent her entry. The customer witnessed the owner lock the front door and then retreat to a back storage room. The woman tried to enter the store but couldn't get in because the door was locked. A few minutes later, the owner unlocked the front door, finished ringing up the customer's items, and resumed business as usual. The front door was the only entrance and exit of the store.

If the customer sues the owner for false imprisonment, will she prevail?

A) Yes, because she was aware of the confinement.
B) Yes, because the door was locked while the customer was inside the store.
C) No, because the customer did not suffer any physical harm or bodily injury.
D) No, because the owner's actions were directed against the woman, not the customer

The correct answer is A)

A person is subject to liability for false imprisonment if the following three requirements are satisfied: 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the defendant; 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.


WTF KAPLAN THE OWNER DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFINE ANYBODY HE INTENDED TO KEEP SOMEONE OUT.


Intent is defined as acting with the purpose to cause a result (i.e. acting with the purpose to confine someone) OR acting in a way such that you have knowledge that a result is substantially likely to occur. For false imprisonment you either have to know about the confinement OR be injured thereby. Even though the owner acted with the purpose to keep someone out as opposed to in, he (assuming he is a reasonable person) had knowledge that his actions would also keep someone in.

That is my take--it is kind of a crappy question and could have definitely been written better. I have noticed a lot of questions like this with Kaplan where they mostly make sense after I look at the answer but it was just really poorly written. It seems like sometimes you have to assume facts that aren't really in the prompt to get the question right. I hope the actual bar exam MC questions are better.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:26 pm

dudeman2014 wrote:This question is angering me, I feel like it is honestly a mistake by Kaplan. Can someone please explain.

One afternoon a customer was shopping in a clothing store. The owner was standing behind the front counter ringing up several items for the customer when she suddenly saw another woman walking across the street toward the store. The owner loathed the woman because she had previously stolen merchandise from the store.

Believing that the woman was about to enter the store, the owner hastily ran to the front door and locked it to prevent her entry. The customer witnessed the owner lock the front door and then retreat to a back storage room. The woman tried to enter the store but couldn't get in because the door was locked. A few minutes later, the owner unlocked the front door, finished ringing up the customer's items, and resumed business as usual. The front door was the only entrance and exit of the store.

If the customer sues the owner for false imprisonment, will she prevail?

A) Yes, because she was aware of the confinement.
B) Yes, because the door was locked while the customer was inside the store.
C) No, because the customer did not suffer any physical harm or bodily injury.
D) No, because the owner's actions were directed against the woman, not the customer

The correct answer is A)

A person is subject to liability for false imprisonment if the following three requirements are satisfied: 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the defendant; 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.


WTF KAPLAN THE OWNER DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFINE ANYBODY HE INTENDED TO KEEP SOMEONE OUT.

Intent requirement is satisfied only if:
a. Δ desired confinement, or
b. Δ knew confinement was substantially certain to occur due to his actions

By locking the door, the owner knew confinement was substantially certain to occur. The customer saw the owner lock the door, so she was aware of the confinement. The explanation is incomplete.

The question I have is why B isn't the right answer. It seems to go more directly to the reason for FI. Is it because she could have been confined even without locking?

User avatar
emciosn
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby emciosn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:31 pm

a male human wrote:
dudeman2014 wrote:This question is angering me, I feel like it is honestly a mistake by Kaplan. Can someone please explain.

One afternoon a customer was shopping in a clothing store. The owner was standing behind the front counter ringing up several items for the customer when she suddenly saw another woman walking across the street toward the store. The owner loathed the woman because she had previously stolen merchandise from the store.

Believing that the woman was about to enter the store, the owner hastily ran to the front door and locked it to prevent her entry. The customer witnessed the owner lock the front door and then retreat to a back storage room. The woman tried to enter the store but couldn't get in because the door was locked. A few minutes later, the owner unlocked the front door, finished ringing up the customer's items, and resumed business as usual. The front door was the only entrance and exit of the store.

If the customer sues the owner for false imprisonment, will she prevail?

A) Yes, because she was aware of the confinement.
B) Yes, because the door was locked while the customer was inside the store.
C) No, because the customer did not suffer any physical harm or bodily injury.
D) No, because the owner's actions were directed against the woman, not the customer

The correct answer is A)

A person is subject to liability for false imprisonment if the following three requirements are satisfied: 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the defendant; 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.


WTF KAPLAN THE OWNER DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFINE ANYBODY HE INTENDED TO KEEP SOMEONE OUT.

Intent requirement is satisfied only if:
a. Δ desired confinement, or
b. Δ knew confinement was substantially certain to occur due to his actions

By locking the door, the owner knew confinement was substantially certain to occur. The customer saw the owner lock the door, so she was aware of the confinement. The explanation is incomplete.

The question I have is why B isn't the right answer. It seems to go more directly to the reason for FI. Is it because she could have been confined even without locking?


I think A is better because the door could be locked while the customer was inside BUT if the customer never realized the door was locked (or was not injured) then there is no false imprisonment. So, just the facts in B are not enough to meet the elements for false imprisonment since it doesn't also say that the customer knew that the door was locked while he was inside. The knowing that the door is locked is key so that makes A the most right.

dudeman2014
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby dudeman2014 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:36 pm

a male human wrote:
dudeman2014 wrote:This question is angering me, I feel like it is honestly a mistake by Kaplan. Can someone please explain.

One afternoon a customer was shopping in a clothing store. The owner was standing behind the front counter ringing up several items for the customer when she suddenly saw another woman walking across the street toward the store. The owner loathed the woman because she had previously stolen merchandise from the store.

Believing that the woman was about to enter the store, the owner hastily ran to the front door and locked it to prevent her entry. The customer witnessed the owner lock the front door and then retreat to a back storage room. The woman tried to enter the store but couldn't get in because the door was locked. A few minutes later, the owner unlocked the front door, finished ringing up the customer's items, and resumed business as usual. The front door was the only entrance and exit of the store.

If the customer sues the owner for false imprisonment, will she prevail?

A) Yes, because she was aware of the confinement.
B) Yes, because the door was locked while the customer was inside the store.
C) No, because the customer did not suffer any physical harm or bodily injury.
D) No, because the owner's actions were directed against the woman, not the customer

The correct answer is A)

A person is subject to liability for false imprisonment if the following three requirements are satisfied: 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the defendant; 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.


WTF KAPLAN THE OWNER DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFINE ANYBODY HE INTENDED TO KEEP SOMEONE OUT.

Intent requirement is satisfied only if:
a. Δ desired confinement, or
b. Δ knew confinement was substantially certain to occur due to his actions

By locking the door, the owner knew confinement was substantially certain to occur. The customer saw the owner lock the door, so she was aware of the confinement. The explanation is incomplete.

The question I have is why B isn't the right answer. It seems to go more directly to the reason for FI. Is it because she could have been confined even without locking?


I forgot that intent could = knowledge that it was substantially certain to occur. Thank you.

dudeman2014
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby dudeman2014 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:51 pm

Two more questions for the Kaplan brain trust here.

1) What is the duty to disclose for the following people?

Sellers of New Homes
Sellers of Used Homes
Landlords

I cannot seem to get a straight answer on this.

2) For common law burglary, if a window is open, and you climb through the window, without touching the window at all, that does not constitute breaking, right? But in modern times it would? That was my understanding but let me know if this is wrong.

User avatar
SAOJD10
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby SAOJD10 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:52 pm

I'll post another easy question I cannot get right - when you have two individuals who own as tenants in common, and one mortgages his interest and then defaults, what does the mortgagee get or take?

KMasterFunk
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:58 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby KMasterFunk » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:51 pm

SAOJD10 wrote:I'll post another easy question I cannot get right - when you have two individuals who own as tenants in common, and one mortgages his interest and then defaults, what does the mortgagee get or take?


The mortgagee gets that person's share as a tenant in common. You can't give a larger estate than you own.

User avatar
emciosn
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby emciosn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:57 pm

dudeman2014 wrote:Two more questions for the Kaplan brain trust here.

1) What is the duty to disclose for the following people?

Sellers of New Homes
Sellers of Used Homes
Landlords

I cannot seem to get a straight answer on this.

2) For common law burglary, if a window is open, and you climb through the window, without touching the window at all, that does not constitute breaking, right? But in modern times it would? That was my understanding but let me know if this is wrong.


As for the first question I am not exactly sure and I don't want to give you misinformation so I will just not answer.

BUT for the second question: at common law the "breaking and entering" part of burglary required you to use some force more than just climbing through an existing opening or making an opening bigger (i.e. opening an already open door or window further). Today, it is fair to say that the breaking/force part has been relaxed. Some states say that any enlargement of an existing opening is sufficient (opening an open door further) while others have gotten rid of the breaking part all together and say just entering is enough (so climbing through an open window without even opening further is enough).

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7117
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby los blancos » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:05 pm

Thanks, Kaplan. I'm really going to learn jack shit from your outline when it's essentially a bunch of statutes cut and pasted without any real explanation. Fuck you. I could've looked them up myself.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:23 pm

Don't forget about constructive breaking, which applies under both CL and ML, I believe. In that case, you don't have to touch anything.

Torvon
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Torvon » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:25 pm

(c) There are several types of character evidence that defendants generally offer, including:

1) previous acts pertinent to the character trait in question
...

Well, that's odd, seeing as how the FRE say you can't do that. GG Kaplan.

User avatar
emciosn
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby emciosn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:40 pm

What are people's thoughts on Kaplan's crim law/crim pro Qbank (and redbook) practice MBE questions? I have been doing basically the same on all the other areas but have been doing considerable worse on only the crim law/crim pro questions. This is weird to me because I did well in crim law in law school (if that even matters) and I feel good about crim law when I am memorizing.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:41 pm

Torvon wrote:
(c) There are several types of character evidence that defendants generally offer, including:

1) previous acts pertinent to the character trait in question
...

Well, that's odd, seeing as how the FRE say you can't do that. GG Kaplan.

I wonder if I can get a job working at Kaplan revamping its outlines.

Also, does the smell of the pages give anyone else a headache? I think Barbri has paper that is high quality and actually white (is it worth the extra premium tho).

Torvon
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Torvon » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:46 pm

emciosn wrote:What are people's thoughts on Kaplan's crim law/crim pro Qbank (and redbook) practice MBE questions? I have been doing basically the same on all the other areas but have been doing considerable worse on only the crim law/crim pro questions. This is weird to me because I did well in crim law in law school (if that even matters) and I feel good about crim law when I am memorizing.


I had this problem with the Criminal Procedure questions in the red book. They REALLY need to write new questions for that.

User avatar
emciosn
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby emciosn » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:51 pm

Torvon wrote:
emciosn wrote:What are people's thoughts on Kaplan's crim law/crim pro Qbank (and redbook) practice MBE questions? I have been doing basically the same on all the other areas but have been doing considerable worse on only the crim law/crim pro questions. This is weird to me because I did well in crim law in law school (if that even matters) and I feel good about crim law when I am memorizing.


I had this problem with the Criminal Procedure questions in the red book. They REALLY need to write new questions for that.


Yeah I would say I am bombing the crim pro questions the hardest. Any the explanations just highlight how poorly written the questions are half the time. I hope the real MBE questions are better.

User avatar
flipadelphia
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby flipadelphia » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:54 pm

a male human wrote:Also, does the smell of the pages give anyone else a headache? I think Barbri has paper that is high quality and actually white (is it worth the extra premium tho).


Ha my barbri friend was just mocking my inferior recycled paper

gewbert
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:49 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby gewbert » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:12 am

Yea on a lot of the crim law/pro questions I've been having issues. Especially on crim law between depraved heart and involuntary manslaughter. They don't always do a good job with the facts and it's a pretty grey line (in my opinion, unless someone can disabuse me of that notion).

Also, I've been having a fight with the "experts" over this question:

Police have been surveilling an engineer's house, because they know that he is a major player in the local cocaine trade. They are hoping for a break that may help them put a stop to his illegal activities. They received a tip that he may be moving a few kilos of cocaine on the night in question. Just before the officers are about to make their move, they see the engineer load a couple of suitcases into a baker's truck. The engineer then leans into the truck's window and hands the baker something. When the baker is about six blocks away, the police pull his car over for speeding.

The officers ask for his driving license, and when they call it in, they find that the baker has an outstanding arrest warrant for a probation violation. They ask the baker to exit the car and place him, handcuffed, sitting on the ground behind the car. They search his car and find a small bag of crystal meth in the glove compartment. Prosecutors charge the baker with possession of narcotics. His lawyer moves to suppress the crystal meth seized from his glove compartment.

Should the evidence be admitted or suppressed?

A) Suppressed, because the defendant was not in the car, and there was no reason to believe that the car contained fruits of the offense.
B) Suppressed, because police may not conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle unless a person's safety is at issue.
C) Admitted, because the evidence was made incident to an arrest for a probation violation.
D) Admitted, because the officers had probable cause that contraband would be found in the car.

I totally get the SITLA/Gant rule would not apply as he's handcuffed and there's no indication that there's evidence related to speeding in car. I think D is a valid answer (the correct answer was A) because the police had probable cause sufficient to justify an auto search.

Initially, the "expert" tried to argue "oh well the police saw the evidence be put in baker's truck but he was pulled over in his car!" When I point out that's a pretty stupid distinction (how the hell can you imply that?), the next response is that the police didn't have probable cause to search the glovebox anyway, just the suitcases. But couldn't the police search the glovebox because the baker was handed something by the engineer, which could be anywhere (including the glovebox?).

Or am I totally off base?

sweetpea1813
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:45 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby sweetpea1813 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:57 am

gewbert wrote:Yea on a lot of the crim law/pro questions I've been having issues. Especially on crim law between depraved heart and involuntary manslaughter. They don't always do a good job with the facts and it's a pretty grey line (in my opinion, unless someone can disabuse me of that notion).

Also, I've been having a fight with the "experts" over this question:

Police have been surveilling an engineer's house, because they know that he is a major player in the local cocaine trade. They are hoping for a break that may help them put a stop to his illegal activities. They received a tip that he may be moving a few kilos of cocaine on the night in question. Just before the officers are about to make their move, they see the engineer load a couple of suitcases into a baker's truck. The engineer then leans into the truck's window and hands the baker something. When the baker is about six blocks away, the police pull his car over for speeding.

The officers ask for his driving license, and when they call it in, they find that the baker has an outstanding arrest warrant for a probation violation. They ask the baker to exit the car and place him, handcuffed, sitting on the ground behind the car. They search his car and find a small bag of crystal meth in the glove compartment. Prosecutors charge the baker with possession of narcotics. His lawyer moves to suppress the crystal meth seized from his glove compartment.

Should the evidence be admitted or suppressed?

A) Suppressed, because the defendant was not in the car, and there was no reason to believe that the car contained fruits of the offense.
B) Suppressed, because police may not conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle unless a person's safety is at issue.
C) Admitted, because the evidence was made incident to an arrest for a probation violation.
D) Admitted, because the officers had probable cause that contraband would be found in the car.

I totally get the SITLA/Gant rule would not apply as he's handcuffed and there's no indication that there's evidence related to speeding in car. I think D is a valid answer (the correct answer was A) because the police had probable cause sufficient to justify an auto search.

Initially, the "expert" tried to argue "oh well the police saw the evidence be put in baker's truck but he was pulled over in his car!" When I point out that's a pretty stupid distinction (how the hell can you imply that?), the next response is that the police didn't have probable cause to search the glovebox anyway, just the suitcases. But couldn't the police search the glovebox because the baker was handed something by the engineer, which could be anywhere (including the glovebox?).

Or am I totally off base?


I think you make a very good point. They talk about the baker's car and the baker's truck. To me, it's not entirely clear whether those are one and the same for purposes of this question? Did he drive away in his truck or his car? Or are they the same thing? I think this is a very poorly worded question and I can only hope that the real MBE questions won't be this convoluted. I agree that the SITLA/GANT exceptions apply because he was handcuffed, but I also understand where you're coming from with the auto exception. If it's any reassurance, unless the question is as ridiculous as this one, it's obvious you know the law well so you should be able to answer a "normal" question on the actual MBE!

gewbert
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:49 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby gewbert » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:39 pm

Yea that's my hope....i know the law but that doesn't always get me the right answer because of the way some of the answers are worded.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby a male human » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:41 pm

My notes say you do not require probably cause (just reasonable suspicion) to do a search incident to arrest. PO can search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. From that viewpoint, D is not the best answer.

Again, that's what my notes say anyway.

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Doritos » Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:27 pm

a male human wrote:My notes say you do not require probably cause (just reasonable suspicion) to do a search incident to arrest. PO can search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. From that viewpoint, D is not the best answer.

Again, that's what my notes say anyway.


You missed part of the rule. The 5-0 can search a car even if the arrested person doesn't have genuine access to it if they have reasonable belief that evidence related to the crime of arrest is in the car.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jerrycallo and 12 guests