Barbri paced program question? Forum

[jd20132013]

Can this be true RE: Automobile exception?

Cops have to have probable cause to search the car, and can search the whole car, I get that.

But can they really then tow the vehicle and search it at a later time??? the CriticalPass suggests this.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was actaully the law but my God

[MoneyMay]

Can this be true RE: Automobile exception?

Cops have to have probable cause to search the car, and can search the whole car, I get that.

But can they really then tow the vehicle and search it at a later time??? the CriticalPass suggests this.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was actaully the law but my God

100% true. Rationale is if they can search it on the side of the road, then they should be able to tow it and search it later for safety reasons. One they have PC you're basically fucked.

[tsutsik]

Can this be true RE: Automobile exception?

Cops have to have probable cause to search the car, and can search the whole car, I get that.

But can they really then tow the vehicle and search it at a later time??? the CriticalPass suggests this.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was actaully the law but my God

100% true. Rationale is if they can search it on the side of the road, then they should be able to tow it and search it later for safety reasons. One they have PC you're basically fucked.

They don't even need probable cause, right? They can conduct an inventory search of the car if its impounded.

[MoneyMay]

Can this be true RE: Automobile exception?

Cops have to have probable cause to search the car, and can search the whole car, I get that.

But can they really then tow the vehicle and search it at a later time??? the CriticalPass suggests this.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was actaully the law but my God

100% true. Rationale is if they can search it on the side of the road, then they should be able to tow it and search it later for safety reasons. One they have PC you're basically fucked.

They don't even need probable cause, right? They can conduct an inventory search of the car if its impounded.

Right but he mentioned the automobile exception, which is different from an inventory search, which you do need PC for.

[beachbum]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

[Georgia Avenue]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

[jd20132013]

Anyone have good working definitions for reasonable suspicion v. probable cause?

I know RS is the one required for a terry stop and to pull over a car, and it's not demanding at all (pretty much just anything beyond a hunch).
How would you describe PC? Is it basically "a reasonable person (reasonable cop?) would think that a crime was likely being or had been committed"?

[beachbum]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

Gracias.

Also, does anyone have just a good outline/breakdown of Article IV P&I? For whatever reason, this topic just hasn't clicked with me. (Strict or intermediate scrutiny? What is the criteria for finding a law discriminatory between residents/nonresidents? etc.)

[harmonep07]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

They can also do a Terry "frisk" of your car if they have reason to believe you're armed and dangerous.

[encore1101]

Can this be true RE: Automobile exception?

Cops have to have probable cause to search the car, and can search the whole car, I get that.

But can they really then tow the vehicle and search it at a later time??? the CriticalPass suggests this.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was actaully the law but my God

There's three different types of automobile searches that are permitted:

Automobile exception to the warrant requirement -- because of the reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle, along with its transportable nature, police officers may search the vehicle, and any containers, that they have reasonable suspicion where contraband can be found.
Example: K-9 police officer pulls over someone for running a red light. K-9 alerts the presence of cocaine in the trunk. Police officer can search the trunk and any containers he finds inside.

Search of an automobile incident to lawful arrest -- If the prisoner has not been secured (i.e. arrested and placed in back of the car), but just hanging out outside his car and theoretically can reach inside the car, police officers can search the car to secure their safety or for any evidence of the crime for which the defendant is suspected to have committed.
Example: Police pulls over individual driving a vehicle, and both the individual and vehicle match the description of a convenience store robbery that just occurred. Police can search the vehicle for evidence.

Inventory search -- A car that has been impounded can be searched, so long as the police precinct has a policy for searching vehicles that it impounds, the search was in pursuant to that policy and not a pretext for investigation, and the police complied with that policy. The idea is to protect the police from weapons that may be in the vehicle, protect themselves from claims of damage or theft by the owner, and protect the owner for missing property.
Example: abandoned car left on the highway is impounded and, pursuant to policy, is searched and drugs are found in the glove compartment. The owner claims his car and is arrested.

[pizzasodafries]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

One caveat that they love testing us on though is that even if there is PC to search car, the item being searched must be reasonable to the location or container. Say they arresting you for stealing TV's they can't search small containers that obviously can't fit a TV

[harmonep07]

Anyone have good working definitions for reasonable suspicion v. probable cause?

I know RS is the one required for a terry stop and to pull over a car, and it's not demanding at all (pretty much just anything beyond a hunch).
How would you describe PC? Is it basically "a reasonable person (reasonable cop?) would think that a crime was likely being or had been committed"?

Probable cause is "fair probability" that evidence of a crime or contraband will be found (or I guess that someone has committed a crime in the context if arrest).

Reasonable suspicion requires "specific and articulable" facts that inform an officer's belief that criminality is afoot.

[pizzasodafries]

Anyone have good working definitions for reasonable suspicion v. probable cause?

I know RS is the one required for a terry stop and to pull over a car, and it's not demanding at all (pretty much just anything beyond a hunch).
How would you describe PC? Is it basically "a reasonable person (reasonable cop?) would think that a crime was likely being or had been committed"?

Probable cause is "fair probability" that evidence of a crime or contraband will be found (or I guess that someone has committed a crime in the context if arrest).

Reasonable suspicion requires "specific and articulable" facts that inform an officer's belief that criminality is afoot.

Correct, though that's just for a Terry Stop, a terry frisk requires reasonable suspicion of being armed.

[encore1101]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

Gracias.

Also, does anyone have just a good outline/breakdown of Article IV P&I? For whatever reason, this topic just hasn't clicked with me. (Strict or intermediate scrutiny? What is the criteria for finding a law discriminatory between residents/nonresidents? etc.)

there has been a Art. IV P&I violation, if:

1.State law that discriminates against out-of-staters ("Individuals who live out of state cannot work as in-state doctors.") regarding fundamental rights;
2. Intermediate scrutiny.

[MoneyMay]

Q: Can cop stop your car with just reasonable suspicion (i.e. Terry stop)? I think I saw somewhere that that was the case, but want to make sure.

yes, but the auto exception doesn't come into play unless you have PC. However, with just reasonable suspicion they can pull you over, do a dog sniff (so long as it doesn't unnecessarily prolong the stop) and if any of that gives rise to PC the car can be searched, or you can be arrested and a search incident to arrest will give grounds for the search. And once the cops have PC they can search not just the entire car but the contents of any containers within the car as well.

To echo the poster above, once they get PC you're in a world of hurt.

Gracias.

Also, does anyone have just a good outline/breakdown of Article IV P&I? For whatever reason, this topic just hasn't clicked with me. (Strict or intermediate scrutiny? What is the criteria for finding a law discriminatory between residents/nonresidents? etc.)

there has been a Art. IV P&I violation, if:

1.State law that discriminates against out-of-staters ("Individuals who live out of state cannot work as in-state doctors.") regarding fundamental rights;
2. Intermediate scrutiny.

I have some weird "substantial justification" test for Article IV and I don't know why...

[LouEVille]

Yeah, I have substantial justification + no less restrictive means.

[encore1101]

I have some weird "substantial justification" test for Article IV and I don't know why...

Intermediate scrutiny gets all messed up because the language they use for it, both Barbri and Scotus, is not consistent. Sometimes its "substantial justification" or "compelling reason." I just call everything that's not rational basis or strict scrutiny, intermediate.

[beachbum]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

[LouEVille]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Pretty sure it only violates the 14th Amend. P&I clause by violating the right of interstate travel. It doesn't violate the Article IV P&I because the plaintiff is a resident of the state being sued, so he/she is not an out-of-stater.

I've missed a couple of MBEs like this, so that's the only reason I know the distinction.

[encore1101]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Well, I don't know if I'm right about this, but as far as (1) goes, EPC prevents the government from treating people differently. In the hypo you have above, the people are being distinguished based on how long they've lived in the state, which is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Because its not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, it would only get rational basis scrutiny, which is pretty generous towards the state. Not impossible, but its not a strong argument. It might be the right answer in a "Which one of these is the plaintiff's strongest argument" fuck-with-you Barbri questions, but there's way better answers out there.

edit: and i agree with Lou, P&I Article IV prevents out-of-staters from being discriminated against. If the person is already a resident of the state, just not long enough, then Article IV P&I wouldn't apply.

[MoneyMay]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Well, I don't know if I'm right about this, but as far as (1) goes, EPC prevents the government from treating people differently. In the hypo you have above, the people are being distinguished based on how long they've lived in the state, which is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Because its not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, it would only get rational basis scrutiny, which is pretty generous towards the state. Not impossible, but its not a strong argument. It might be the right answer in a "Which one of these is the plaintiff's strongest argument" fuck-with-you Barbri questions, but there's way better answers out there.

I think I had this exact question (idk if it was adaptibar or barbri) and the EPC was the only answer that made any sense. It was one of those "lol, these are all wrong but pick the least wrong answer" questions.

[encore1101]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Well, I don't know if I'm right about this, but as far as (1) goes, EPC prevents the government from treating people differently. In the hypo you have above, the people are being distinguished based on how long they've lived in the state, which is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Because its not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, it would only get rational basis scrutiny, which is pretty generous towards the state. Not impossible, but its not a strong argument. It might be the right answer in a "Which one of these is the plaintiff's strongest argument" fuck-with-you Barbri questions, but there's way better answers out there.

I think I had this exact question (idk if it was adaptibar or barbri) and the EPC was the only answer that made any sense. It was one of those "lol, these are all wrong but pick the least wrong answer" questions.

i hate that shit

[beachbum]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Well, I don't know if I'm right about this, but as far as (1) goes, EPC prevents the government from treating people differently. In the hypo you have above, the people are being distinguished based on how long they've lived in the state, which is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Because its not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, it would only get rational basis scrutiny, which is pretty generous towards the state. Not impossible, but its not a strong argument. It might be the right answer in a "Which one of these is the plaintiff's strongest argument" fuck-with-you Barbri questions, but there's way better answers out there.

This is what I would've thought, too, but my conlaw lecture notes specifically list the right to interstate travel as a right receiving strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Still trying to wrap my head around it.

[jd20132013]

yes, the interstate travel one is very confusing as to where it's rooted.

all of the stuff discussed on this page re: p and I is confusing. going to come back later after gym and read it

[LouEVille]

Ok, so waiting periods (e.g., you have to reside in state 2 years before you're eligible to receive x benefit) are violative of:

1) Equal protection clause because violate right to interstate travel
2) P&I 14th amendment because violate right to interstate travel
3) P&I Article IV because discriminate against out-of-staters

Am I doing that right? (I guess they'd also be violative of due process because right to interstate travel is a fundamental right?) Fuckin conlaw, man.

Well, I don't know if I'm right about this, but as far as (1) goes, EPC prevents the government from treating people differently. In the hypo you have above, the people are being distinguished based on how long they've lived in the state, which is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Because its not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, it would only get rational basis scrutiny, which is pretty generous towards the state. Not impossible, but its not a strong argument. It might be the right answer in a "Which one of these is the plaintiff's strongest argument" fuck-with-you Barbri questions, but there's way better answers out there.

This is what I would've thought, too, but my conlaw lecture notes specifically list the right to interstate travel as a right receiving strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Still trying to wrap my head around it.

I think the right to travel only comes into play with the due process clause, not the equal protection clause. If the gov't undertakes an action to burden/take away an individual's right to interstate travel, because that right is a fundamental right, the gov't must show a substantial justification for its actions. This would subject the state action to strict scrutiny.