How confident do you feel? Forum

[yankeeman86]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

don't be so certain. who knows what the answer is.

True ... I just feel so "ugh" about that MBE. There were two that I outright guessed on; 75 that I narrowed it down to two choices; and the other 123 I felt decent about my choice ... And I'm sure a few of those I felt decent about are incorrect from the discussions I've seen on the hypos. I'm going to be that person that fails by 1.2 pts. So much worse that just bombing it.

.

[PersistentAttorney]

No reasonable expectation of privacy at borders. Customs agents can do whatever.

I thought it was exceeding the scope and intrusion on something rule don't remember the exact language

Doubt it, they can look into your cell phone dude. Have you not been reading the news? Border exception is scary.

They can look into your cell but they need reasonable suspicion for full blown searches i.e. Stripping your car down to screws and bolts... also they cannot take you to a hospital and remove things from inside you w/o court order, but they can wait for bowel movement.

But they can search your cell phone and if you have everything erased beforehand it raises reasonable suspicion (wtf)

Very fucked up area of law.

[PersistentAttorney]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

[PersistentAttorney]

Hypothetically speaking: Jack is running away from a vicious dog, Bruno. Jack jumps the fence into Jason's yard. Jason points a gun at him and says: leave or I'll shoot. Jack begs and pleads with Jason, but ultimately decided he'd rather be bitten than shot. Jack jumps back over the fence and low and behold, he's mauled by Bruno.

Jason do anything wrong to a trespasser here? Does the fact that Bruno is not Jason's dog have any effect on the answer?

I think this is still a "can't use deadly force to protect your property" principle.

I agree. Decided it was a breach of duty owed to trespassers. Sloppy way of wording the answer choice though...

Necessity right? So the owner could not exclude him off of the property if the owner knew that the trespasser was in danger.

Yup. Sounds like necessity and you cannot use deadly force to eject too.

[PersistentAttorney]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

don't be so certain. who knows what the answer is.

True ... I just feel so "ugh" about that MBE. There were two that I outright guessed on; 75 that I narrowed it down to two choices; and the other 123 I felt decent about my choice ... And I'm sure a few of those I felt decent about are incorrect from the discussions I've seen on the hypos. I'm going to be that person that fails by 1.2 pts. So much worse that just bombing it.

Lets say out of the 123, you know you got about 10 wrong from discussions. Of the 113, lets say u did decent. What does decent mean? When you were doing practice questions, did you do 65, 70, 75% correct? When you did adaptibar, what ur avg? At 70% that means 34 incorrect Qs. So 34+10+2. Leaves u with 14 before u hit 60 qs which is 65%. Of the 75, how many do you think u got wrong? Lets sAy 30 so 60% correct. That puts u at 124/200 which is not terrible. 62%? Might get u 135-138. If u did decent on essYs then u are good. Also the 25 experimentals makes it tricky. They can take away some qs u got wrong but can also take qs u got right.

These 25 experimentals are scaring the shit out of me.
I am a foreign educated repeater and I have a feeling that these 25 questions are going to be used against foreign educated candidates for policy reasons. I did Kaplan and consistently scored around 65% to 70%. I am confident on my day 1 performance but day 2 was scary... I felt very decent about 130 questions and the rest I narrowed down to two. I should be passing but that increase from 10 to 25 is outright scary and I'm sure it's policy driven.
Last time I got 257/400. I had lost points from not completing the second MPT and my raw MBE was also low 127. By comparing my performance this time with the one I failed I should feel confident on passing but now with the 25 experimental questions I don't...

[blaze1306]

OK so back to how do you feel about the exam....not arguing about questions we cant change. I am a repeater from July, and I can say I was happy to see the change in MBE format. The questions were CONSIDERABLY shorter than the last exam. I remember in July how dismayed I was at reading long fact patters that were one question per page. This time I was really happy to see two-three and one time four questions per page. In July I felt a lot of the answer choices were intentionally tricky and vague, this time I don't feel the answers were as difficult as July. That could be because I was better prepared but I could more readily select two answers to fret over.

I failed last time because of my MBE score and really put in a lot of time studying this time for the MBE with Adaptibar. While I still don't feel confident, I know I learned a lot form the 900 I did. I do not feel the questions were an accurate representation of the actual Bar but almost any practice makes perfect.

I would like some feedback on strategy, it was drilled by others that the MEE test the rule and nuance, while the MBE test the exception. I know last July when I failed I was quick to read, find the initial answer that seemed right and move on. This time I made a point to find what I thought was the easy right answer and then take some time looking for an exception, this time I found a number of questions that if I hadn't taken those 5 extra second I would have chosen an answer that I now see was actually covered by an exception. On the 15-20 I was absolutely not sure of I always choose the answer that was at least closer to the exception, looking back on the ones I remember it looks like I got a few of those right.

Finally the MEE, I cant adequately evaluate it. Last July I was ready and scored average, this time I hope for the same. My essays were much better organized for IRAC and were, at the very least, organized better. I didn't study much or even take family law in law school (3 years ago) So I absolutely guessed and threw out buzz words. I hope I did enough. The MPT was ok...number one was a train wreck but number two was a much better written guardianship example since I have done those before at work...here's to waiting 6 weeks for scores and good luck to everyone.

[Smash_Box_Theta]

Erased

[happyhour1122]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Not exactly the best source, but it was the first I could find after a cursory Google search:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but it always seemed like border searches were pretty broad in scope. If I recall correctly, I believe they had grounds for suspicion.

border search is very broad.

[happyhour1122]

What Action Is Allowed to Eject Trespassers? If a trespasser is discovered, the proper action is to ask the trespasser to leave. If that fails, the landowner should call the police. The landowner is not allowed to use "self help" methods to eject the trespasser. This means that a landowner cannot forcefully remove a trespasser from their land. A landowner also may not detain a trespasser while waiting for police to arrive.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... BWIzM.dpuf

You have a duty to discovered trespassers. I think that is where this question was going...albeit in a convoluted way.

Necessity defense to trespass, creating privilege. Google ploof v putnam. Something like that. Also in Barbri outlines/ review.

yes this.

[cal_pushed]

If someone leaves a door unlocked when they know certain persons are planning to break in, what result?

[PersistentAttorney]

If someone leaves a door unlocked when they know certain persons are planning to break in, what result?

Don't think it amounts to permission if the others don't know it. And they certainly don't know it if they use another entrance. No communicated help so no "meeting of minds".

[udonisandtrinity]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Mods must be on vacation or something. In past administrations they were pretty strict about MBE discussions.

[udonisandtrinity]

If someone leaves a door unlocked when they know certain persons are planning to break in, what result?

Don't think it amounts to permission if the others don't know it. And they certainly don't know it if they use another entrance. No communicated help so no "meeting of minds".

I think there was an ADAPTIBAR question on this. The fact that the others used a window instead of door unlocked does not excuse accomplice liability.

[yankeeman86]

Hypo land

[udonisandtrinity]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

don't be so certain. who knows what the answer is.

True ... I just feel so "ugh" about that MBE. There were two that I outright guessed on; 75 that I narrowed it down to two choices; and the other 123 I felt decent about my choice ... And I'm sure a few of those I felt decent about are incorrect from the discussions I've seen on the hypos. I'm going to be that person that fails by 1.2 pts. So much worse that just bombing it.

Lets say out of the 123, you know you got about 10 wrong from discussions. Of the 113, lets say u did decent. What does decent mean? When you were doing practice questions, did you do 65, 70, 75% correct? When you did adaptibar, what ur avg? At 70% that means 34 incorrect Qs. So 34+10+2. Leaves u with 14 before u hit 60 qs which is 65%. Of the 75, how many do you think u got wrong? Lets sAy 30 so 60% correct. That puts u at 124/200 which is not terrible. 62%? Might get u 135-138. If u did decent on essYs then u are good. Also the 25 experimentals makes it tricky. They can take away some qs u got wrong but can also take qs u got right.

These 25 experimentals are scaring the shit out of me.
I am a foreign educated repeater and I have a feeling that these 25 questions are going to be used against foreign educated candidates for policy reasons. I did Kaplan and consistently scored around 65% to 70%. I am confident on my day 1 performance but day 2 was scary... I felt very decent about 130 questions and the rest I narrowed down to two. I should be passing but that increase from 10 to 25 is outright scary and I'm sure it's policy driven.
Last time I got 257/400. I had lost points from not completing the second MPT and my raw MBE was also low 127. By comparing my performance this time with the one I failed I should feel confident on passing but now with the 25 experimental questions I don't...

It may be policy driven, but for them to compile and analyze the results of foreigners and then compare the analysis to domestic takers to figure out which questions should be experimental is very unlikely.

You're telling me that if 90/100 foreigners get Question 20 correct but only 85/100 domestic get the same Q correct, they will exclude that Q and make it experimental?

Doubtful.

[PersistentAttorney]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

Any interference with bodily integrity requires judicial action, even when at the border, pregnant or not. Did Kaplan too. Look it up. Even if they know you have something inside you they CANNOT force it out without a warrant. Email Prof. Fromm if you want too. See Rochin v. California.

[udonisandtrinity]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

Any interference with bodily integrity requires judicial action, even when at the border, pregnant or not. Did Kaplan too. Look it up. Even if they know you have something inside you they CANNOT force it out without a warrant. Email Prof. Fromm if you want too. See Rochin v. California.

First, according to the above Hypo, they did NOT force it out. She's rushed to the hospital AND AT THE HOSPITAL, the drugs passed through because of bowel movements. Waiting for someone's bowel movements to pass stuff through your body is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. Rushing someone to the hospital is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. It probably is just protocol. Do you think a bunch of TSA agents are going to keep her in a room and then go through her stuff?

Second, your reasoning continues to change in order to defend your justification for an answer choice that appears to be incorrect. I'm going to PM you. You email me Professor Fomm's explanation. Make sure he understands what the exact HYPO is. The HYPO above does not say TSA FORCED it out.

Third, why are you citing case law that is CLEARLY IN CONTRAST to the hypo above? Here is the fact summary of the case you cite.

Facts of the case
Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.

In the hypo above, did the TSA physically force it out like the cops in Rochin? How can you even suggest the two fact patterns are similar? Can you at least agree to that?

[PersistentAttorney]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

Any interference with bodily integrity requires judicial action, even when at the border, pregnant or not. Did Kaplan too. Look it up. Even if they know you have something inside you they CANNOT force it out without a warrant. Email Prof. Fromm if you want too. See Rochin v. California.

First, according to the above Hypo, they did NOT force it out. She's rushed to the hospital AND AT THE HOSPITAL, the drugs passed through because of bowel movements. Waiting for someone's bowel movements to pass stuff through your body is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. Rushing someone to the hospital is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. It probably is just protocol. Do you think a bunch of TSA agents are going to keep her in a room and then go through her stuff?

Second, your reasoning continues to change in order to defend your justification for an answer choice that appears to be incorrect. I'm going to PM you. You email me Professor Fomm's explanation. Make sure he understands what the exact HYPO is. The HYPO above does not say TSA FORCED it out.

Third, why are you citing case law that is CLEARLY IN CONTRAST to the hypo above? Here is the fact summary of the case you cite.



Facts of the case
Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.

In the hypo above, did the TSA physically force it out like the cops in Rochin? How can you even suggest the two fact patterns are similar? Can you at least agree to that?

As I already told you in the PM, we remember the facts differently. I remember forced removal in the hospital, you remember a wait for bowel movement. Why would you take someone at the hospital and wait for bowel movement there? In the Hernandez case she was detained for 27h at the border and not a hospital.

[udonisandtrinity]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

Any interference with bodily integrity requires judicial action, even when at the border, pregnant or not. Did Kaplan too. Look it up. Even if they know you have something inside you they CANNOT force it out without a warrant. Email Prof. Fromm if you want too. See Rochin v. California.

First, according to the above Hypo, they did NOT force it out. She's rushed to the hospital AND AT THE HOSPITAL, the drugs passed through because of bowel movements. Waiting for someone's bowel movements to pass stuff through your body is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. Rushing someone to the hospital is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. It probably is just protocol. Do you think a bunch of TSA agents are going to keep her in a room and then go through her stuff?

Second, your reasoning continues to change in order to defend your justification for an answer choice that appears to be incorrect. I'm going to PM you. You email me Professor Fomm's explanation. Make sure he understands what the exact HYPO is. The HYPO above does not say TSA FORCED it out.

Third, why are you citing case law that is CLEARLY IN CONTRAST to the hypo above? Here is the fact summary of the case you cite.



Facts of the case
Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.

In the hypo above, did the TSA physically force it out like the cops in Rochin? How can you even suggest the two fact patterns are similar? Can you at least agree to that?

As I already told you in the PM, we remember the facts differently. I remember forced removal in the hospital, you remember a wait for bowel movement. Why would you take someone at the hospital and wait for bowel movement there? In the Hernandez case she was detained for 27h at the border and not a hospital.

How am I supposed to know why the TSA took them to hospital? I'm arguing based on the above hypo. You are now arguing the facts in the hypo went from bowel movements (as the cause of the drugs passing) to bodily interference because the facts above do not make sense. So you're saying you're right because the hypo doesn't make sense.

I did not make the above hypo up. CanIScream posted it and I am responding to it.

I am arguing based on the hypo above. And based on the hypo above, it looks like the border exception applies.

[PersistentAttorney]

So, completely hypothetically: A woman walks through TSA at the airport, looking shifty, and her X-ray shows something weird in her stomach which officer suspects is [a whole bunch of scary drugs]. Woman is rushed to the hospital where she indeed passes a whole bunch of heroin/coke balloons. Thereafter, woman is arrested and is charged. She moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs on the grounds that the search was illegal.

Whoa, what a scenario. I'm not good at remembering how I would word a 4th am hypo, but—Illegal search?

y

illegal. you can't take some one to hospital even after such an X-ray. There was a case of a Colombian lady bringing in pure colombian cocaine in her rectum and they only thing they could do legally was detain her until bowel movement.

Wrong. Saw this I think in Kaplan. Border exception allows for this according to Kaplan. Plus this so called case of the Colombian lady you are referencing does not support your reasoning. The hypo above does not involve a pregnancy element.

The Supreme Court has held "that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal." (emphasis added)[20] Characterized in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the Court was saying that such a detention ("seizure") was "reasonable", and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (The federal agents in this particular case did not X-ray ("search") her because she claimed she was pregnant. They instead decided to detain her long enough for ordinary bowel movements to evacuate the alimentary canal, despite her "heroic" efforts otherwise.

Any interference with bodily integrity requires judicial action, even when at the border, pregnant or not. Did Kaplan too. Look it up. Even if they know you have something inside you they CANNOT force it out without a warrant. Email Prof. Fromm if you want too. See Rochin v. California.

First, according to the above Hypo, they did NOT force it out. She's rushed to the hospital AND AT THE HOSPITAL, the drugs passed through because of bowel movements. Waiting for someone's bowel movements to pass stuff through your body is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. Rushing someone to the hospital is NOT BODILY INTERFERENCE. It probably is just protocol. Do you think a bunch of TSA agents are going to keep her in a room and then go through her stuff?

Second, your reasoning continues to change in order to defend your justification for an answer choice that appears to be incorrect. I'm going to PM you. You email me Professor Fomm's explanation. Make sure he understands what the exact HYPO is. The HYPO above does not say TSA FORCED it out.

Third, why are you citing case law that is CLEARLY IN CONTRAST to the hypo above? Here is the fact summary of the case you cite.



Facts of the case
Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.

In the hypo above, did the TSA physically force it out like the cops in Rochin? How can you even suggest the two fact patterns are similar? Can you at least agree to that?

As I already told you in the PM, we remember the facts differently. I remember forced removal in the hospital, you remember a wait for bowel movement. Why would you take someone at the hospital and wait for bowel movement there? In the Hernandez case she was detained for 27h at the border and not a hospital.

How am I supposed to know why the TSA took them to hospital? I'm arguing based on the above hypo. You are now arguing the facts in the hypo went from bowel movements (as the cause of the drugs passing) to bodily interference because the facts above do not make sense. So you're saying you're right because the hypo doesn't make sense.

I did not make the above hypo up. CanIScream posted it and I am responding to it.

I am arguing based on the hypo above. And based on the hypo above, it looks like the border exception applies.

OK I am remaking the hypo to forced removal in hospital subsequent to an xray. Based on the hypo as you present it you are right because precedent is clear: someone can be detained reasonably for as long as necessary in wait of bowel movement w/o warrant.

I change the hypo to a transport to hospital and forced removal of cocaine from stomach therein. And for me this amounts to "shocking the conscience" and thus unreasonable if conducted without warrant. This hypo is closer to a real situation that a candidate could encounter in a bar exam as it is more likely for the authorities to take you to a hospital to actively remove something from you rather than take you to a hospital and wait for a bowel movement there. Absolutely no chance that this could happen in a real scenario so I don't think it could be tested like this.

No point in arguing it further. It adds nothing to the thread.

[PersistentAttorney]

based on this discussion, pretty sure i failed.

Same.

I went in to the MBE a bit cocky because I scored very decent on the Barbri full day and refresher exams... Big mistake. I deserve what I get for not researching that I should've used actual past MBE questions and not relied on Barbri (didn't research enough to know they were available until the day before the exam).

I felt violated when I left that exam.

don't be so certain. who knows what the answer is.

True ... I just feel so "ugh" about that MBE. There were two that I outright guessed on; 75 that I narrowed it down to two choices; and the other 123 I felt decent about my choice ... And I'm sure a few of those I felt decent about are incorrect from the discussions I've seen on the hypos. I'm going to be that person that fails by 1.2 pts. So much worse that just bombing it.

Lets say out of the 123, you know you got about 10 wrong from discussions. Of the 113, lets say u did decent. What does decent mean? When you were doing practice questions, did you do 65, 70, 75% correct? When you did adaptibar, what ur avg? At 70% that means 34 incorrect Qs. So 34+10+2. Leaves u with 14 before u hit 60 qs which is 65%. Of the 75, how many do you think u got wrong? Lets sAy 30 so 60% correct. That puts u at 124/200 which is not terrible. 62%? Might get u 135-138. If u did decent on essYs then u are good. Also the 25 experimentals makes it tricky. They can take away some qs u got wrong but can also take qs u got right.

These 25 experimentals are scaring the shit out of me.
I am a foreign educated repeater and I have a feeling that these 25 questions are going to be used against foreign educated candidates for policy reasons. I did Kaplan and consistently scored around 65% to 70%. I am confident on my day 1 performance but day 2 was scary... I felt very decent about 130 questions and the rest I narrowed down to two. I should be passing but that increase from 10 to 25 is outright scary and I'm sure it's policy driven.
Last time I got 257/400. I had lost points from not completing the second MPT and my raw MBE was also low 127. By comparing my performance this time with the one I failed I should feel confident on passing but now with the 25 experimental questions I don't...

It may be policy driven, but for them to compile and analyze the results of foreigners and then compare the analysis to domestic takers to figure out which questions should be experimental is very unlikely.

You're telling me that if 90/100 foreigners get Question 20 correct but only 85/100 domestic get the same Q correct, they will exclude that Q and make it experimental?

Doubtful.

I am not suggesting your scenario because they wouldn't need to go this deep. Think of this: It is most likely that in a question that 90% of takers answered wrong, the 10% that did get it right are in vast majority domestic educated takers. This would also mean that most of the people who got the question wrong are foreign educated. This is statistically proven by the fact that foreign educated takers have half the chances domestic takers have (69% against 36% in July's exam for first time takers, even worst in repeaters). So statistics suggest that domestic takers have better chances against tougher questions. Therefore, if the NCBE decides to actually take into consideration the questions with the highest percentage of failure and discard of the easier ones as "experimental" this would affect foreign takers more than domestic takers. Now they have 25 questions instead of 10.. So more questions to manipulate the result with.

[cnk1220]

.

[HoneyPot]

I think it's silly to believe that the powers-that-be are using the experimental questions to make the MBE more difficult for foreign takers. We have the same access to the same prep material and are given the same exam. To say that eliminating answers deemed difficult (or easy for that matter - it really makes no difference in this scenario) based on how many takers got it correct as a way of making it more difficult for foreign takers to pass is ridiculous. In other words, I find it very difficult to believe that the fact that foreign MBE takers are likely to get a lower score than domestic takers has anything to do which 25 questions are not counted, or even that it will effect foreign takers disproportionately. It's not like that material is super-secret stuff only divulged to domestic takers.


Anyway, good luck everyone. I get my results mid-April, and I'm already starting to get antsy about it. For now, at least it's over.

[PersistentAttorney]

I think it's silly to believe that the powers-that-be are using the experimental questions to make the MBE more difficult for foreign takers. We have the same access to the same prep material and are given the same exam. To say that eliminating answers deemed difficult (or easy for that matter - it really makes no difference in this scenario) based on how many takers got it correct as a way of making it more difficult for foreign takers to pass is ridiculous. In other words, I find it very difficult to believe that the fact that foreign MBE takers are likely to get a lower score than domestic takers has anything to do which 25 questions are not counted, or even that it will effect foreign takers disproportionately. It's not like that material is super-secret stuff only divulged to domestic takers.


Anyway, good luck everyone. I get my results mid-April, and I'm already starting to get antsy about it. For now, at least it's over.

The only way this can be safe from any kind of policy or bias is for the experimental questions to be predetermined (I mean prior to the bar exam). Otherwise, there's so many ways this can be used.

Good luck to you too. Same here on the results...