BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[learntolift]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

They can't. entering F's home was illegal. but the arrest of X is legal because they have a valid arrest warrant for him. X cannot contest the arrest because the police violated F's constitutional rights; only F can raise that for himself, but does not affect X. So because the arrest of X is fine, the search incident to arrest is fine as well.

remember you can only raise an objection to a violation of your own constitutional rights, not when the rights of another have been violated. like how a passenger in a car does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are a passenger in another's car (this would be different if passenger was also owner of the car and a friend or something was driving I believe).

[WahooLaw24]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

I think that was just a standing question. F had standing to challenge the unlawful search of her house, but X did not. I got it wrong as well following your analysis. Just a tricky question.

[LionelHutzJD]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

They can't. entering F's home was illegal. but the arrest of X is legal because they have a valid arrest warrant for him. X cannot contest the arrest because the police violated F's constitutional rights; only F can raise that for himself, but does not affect X. So because the arrest of X is fine, the search incident to arrest is fine as well.

remember you can only raise an objection to a violation of your own constitutional rights, not when the rights of another have been violated. like how a passenger in a car does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are a passenger in another's car (this would be different if passenger was also owner of the car and a friend or something was driving I believe).

This is really helpful. Thank you.

[LionelHutzJD]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

I think that was just a standing question. F had standing to challenge the unlawful search of her house, but X did not. I got it wrong as well following your analysis. Just a tricky question.

Yeah, definitely tricky af.

[mvp99]

LMAO at this crim essay question.. it would take an hour to properly write everything in the answer. Also, didn't even think about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

[LionelHutzJD]

Barbri will give multiple choice questions on literally ANYTHING in the fucking CMR. It is so frustrating!!!

[goden]

Barbri will give multiple choice questions on literally ANYTHING in the fucking CMR. It is so frustrating!!!

lol yea i swear they do this shit on purpose to keep our confidence low it's pretty fucking annoying

[mvp99]

Barbri will give multiple choice questions on literally ANYTHING in the fucking CMR. It is so frustrating!!!

lol yea i swear they do this shit on purpose to keep our confidence low it's pretty fucking annoying

AMP?

[LionelHutzJD]

Barbri will give multiple choice questions on literally ANYTHING in the fucking CMR. It is so frustrating!!!

lol yea i swear they do this shit on purpose to keep our confidence low it's pretty fucking annoying

AMP?

Studysmart.

[Lavitz]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

My understanding was that they couldn't, but Idk.

IIRC, that question was asking about X's rights. Isn't it just that X can't claim an illegal arrest, but if the police happened to find any evidence incriminating the friend after they barged into his house, it would be suppressed because it was an illegal search? Also I guess the friend could sue the police and win some sort of judgment for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. But that has nothing to do with X, who can't defend on the ground that the police violated the friend's Fourth Amendment rights. It's kind of like when a defendant places an object inside a friend's property where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy; they can't get it suppressed it if the police find the object there, even if the police violated the friend's privacy rights to do so.

[SplashBro]

I have a question that appeared in a fact pattern in the Criminal Law workshop.

Police have a valid arrest warrant for X. Police receive a call that X is at Friends house, F. The police arrive at the house and see X's car parked outside. Police knock on F's door and F answers, police asks if X is there, F says no he is not. Police push through, find X and place him under arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest. They find a metal box, open it and find cocaine.

How is it that the police can enter the house of F without consent and without a search warrant to look for X?

Thank you.

They can't. entering F's home was illegal. but the arrest of X is legal because they have a valid arrest warrant for him. X cannot contest the arrest because the police violated F's constitutional rights; only F can raise that for himself, but does not affect X. So because the arrest of X is fine, the search incident to arrest is fine as well.

remember you can only raise an objection to a violation of your own constitutional rights, not when the rights of another have been violated. like how a passenger in a car does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are a passenger in another's car (this would be different if passenger was also owner of the car and a friend or something was driving I believe).

This is correct. I noticed in Rakas the SC left the door open for property interests to be considered when a passenger was trying to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy. But apparently in Wyoming v. Houghton the SC threw that idea out the window and now police may search the passenger's belongings without restriction (maybe they cannot search the passenger himself???). Anyway I gave up trying to understand this "totality of the circumstances" test. It's BS, the court picks what it wants. I'll memorize the specific scenarios and move on.

Also, I know the CMR talks about "standing" but the SC said that label shouldn't be used.

[ellewoods123]

LMAO at this crim essay question.. it would take an hour to properly write everything in the answer. Also, didn't even think about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

i'm literally SO worried about timing on the essays. there is absolutely no way to write a "model answer" like that in 30 minutes. Also - completely dropped the ball on plain view. I did an entire SITLA analysis. so um, are there points to be given if you correctly IRAC and analyze but don't use the law they're looking for? I thought I made a pretty decent argue for a unlawful SITLA. unless I"m just in left field.

[WahooLaw24]

LMAO at this crim essay question.. it would take an hour to properly write everything in the answer. Also, didn't even think about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

i'm literally SO worried about timing on the essays. there is absolutely no way to write a "model answer" like that in 30 minutes. Also - completely dropped the ball on plain view. I did an entire SITLA analysis. so um, are there points to be given if you correctly IRAC and analyze but don't use the law they're looking for? I thought I made a pretty decent argue for a unlawful SITLA. unless I"m just in left field.

I did the same thing and was told that it wasn't in issue in the case. I'm not sure why that's so.

[imnottelling]

Real Property questions today are the exceptions of the exceptions. If UBE actually asks these questions, then they have way too much time on their hands.

[LionelHutzJD]

LMAO at this crim essay question.. it would take an hour to properly write everything in the answer. Also, didn't even think about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

i'm literally SO worried about timing on the essays. there is absolutely no way to write a "model answer" like that in 30 minutes. Also - completely dropped the ball on plain view. I did an entire SITLA analysis. so um, are there points to be given if you correctly IRAC and analyze but don't use the law they're looking for? I thought I made a pretty decent argue for a unlawful SITLA. unless I"m just in left field.

I did the same thing and was told that it wasn't in issue in the case. I'm not sure why that's so.

I hit on plain view and got a good score on the essay. I did not hit on poisonous tree doctrine and was told I should have.

The items found in the car were not found as a result of a search incident to a lawful arrest.

[sublime]

LMAO at this crim essay question.. it would take an hour to properly write everything in the answer. Also, didn't even think about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

i'm literally SO worried about timing on the essays. there is absolutely no way to write a "model answer" like that in 30 minutes. Also - completely dropped the ball on plain view. I did an entire SITLA analysis. so um, are there points to be given if you correctly IRAC and analyze but don't use the law they're looking for? I thought I made a pretty decent argue for a unlawful SITLA. unless I"m just in left field.

I did the same thing and was told that it wasn't in issue in the case. I'm not sure why that's so.

I hit on plain view and got a good score on the essay. I did not hit on poisonous tree doctrine and was told I should have.

The items found in the car were not found as a result of a search incident to a lawful arrest.

Yea, I didn't fuck with poisonious tree.

Btw, do you guys all have your torts essay graded? Also, did you guys do this closed book? Remember the law enough?

[Redfactor]

Btw, do you guys all have your torts essay graded? Also, did you guys do this closed book? Remember the law enough?

Not yet on Torts. I did crim law closed book ~ 35 mins. It was a lot.

Starting to regret not doing flashcards more on the BLL. I understand the law well, it's just I haven't done the memorization yet to get elements on paper efficiently (or in the appropriate verbiage).

Will have to put more time in on critical pass cards.

[sublime]

Btw, do you guys all have your torts essay graded? Also, did you guys do this closed book? Remember the law enough?

Not yet on Torts. I did crim law closed book ~ 35 mins. It was a lot.

Starting to regret not doing flashcards more on the BLL. I understand the law well, it's just I haven't done the memorization yet to get elements no paper efficiently (or in the appropriate verbiage).

Will have to put more time in on critical pass cards.

Yea, same here. I just copped Critical Pass and will prob start making minimalistic outlines soon. I don't remember anything. I can see the issues but the law is

[mvp99]

Im also using critical pass for the same reason... cant fully recall the law for the essays

[mvp99]

Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

Also, although a deficiency judgment may be brought against the party assuming the mortgage and the original mortgagor, courts will always grant a judgment for deficiency against the person who assumed the mortgage first, before the original mortgagor. The question was "against whom should the bank be granted judgment? The question was not "who could be liable for the deficiency?"

Sometimes Barbri, sometimes..

PS 8 out 18

[LionelHutzJD]

I wonder if some of the buildings on 5th ave can sue for a trespass every time something "swings" over their property. FUCK.

[jj252525]

Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

Also confused by this.

[LionelHutzJD]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

[jj252525]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

[LionelHutzJD]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

I know that but the grantee took subject to the mortgage, which still means the grantor is liable but grantee is not liable. However, the facts say that the grantee then assumed, which is just confusing, because although he originally took "subject to" he now assumes is and is thus liable.