California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[glitter178]

I didn't finish the first PT. I've been reading some websites that basically say not finishing a pt basically means I fail the bar.

Help.

How much didn't you finish by?

Basically, I was barely able to address the facts applicable to the first issue in PT A. I thought that part was confusing, so I sent up my full memo and then spent too much time on part 2. I basically had time to discuss about how the Oregon case was persuasive, suggested that this might be distinguished here bc the Oregon court discussed how the admin wanted to regulate it, whereas the director in Columbia didn't really think they needed to be. Maybe got in a few incoherent sentences about the flip side of the "structures." Argument. Sorry that this isn't very clear, but I know we have to be pretty vague about test details.

[lmr]

I didn't finish the first PT. I've been reading some websites that basically say not finishing a pt basically means I fail the bar.

Help.

How much didn't you finish by?

Basically, I was barely able to address the facts applicable to the first issue in PT A. I thought that part was confusing, so I sent up my full memo and then spent too much time on part 2. I basically had time to discuss about how the Oregon case was persuasive, suggested that this might be distinguished here bc the Oregon court discussed how the admin wanted to regulate it, whereas the director in Columbia didn't really think they needed to be. Maybe got in a few incoherent sentences about the flip side of the "structures." Argument. Sorry that this isn't very clear, but I know we have to be pretty vague about test details.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. As long as it looks like a sort of complete body of work and you finished your 2nd PT you should be fine. There's a bunch of ways to pass this test def not an auto fail.

[Anonnn]

Trusts essay Q - trustee v. Charity - anyone else potentially spot a RAP issue that turned on charitable trust vs private trust? Was I crazy in thinking that?

[TitoSantana]

Did anyone not mention that Dan, from the Criminal Procedure question, was wearing a button-up winter jacket in the summer which would create reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and frisk. I know this is an obvious point to most but I'm sure i just f$%#ed up someone's weekend.

[lmr]

Did anyone not mention that Dan, from the Criminal Procedure question, was wearing a button-up winter jacket in the summer which would create reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and frisk. I know this is an obvious point to most but I'm sure i just f$%#ed up someone's weekend.

I said it wasn't enough to rise to RS. Umm it's most def not enough to rise to RS.

[lithoman]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

[lmr]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

(I) No tip, no description of suspect, no high crime area, no report of a theft, no observation of him just committing an illegal act. Don't see Terry justifying a stop someone for wearing a heavy coat in the summer running.

[PennJD83]

I think I said that there was RS because he was wearing a heavy winter coat AND he was running down the street...don't know if that was enough..

[lithoman]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

(I) No tip, no description of suspect, no high crime area, no report of a theft, no observation of him just committing an illegal act. Don't see Terry justifying a stop someone for wearing a heavy coat in the summer running.

Supreme Court has never stated exactly what factors need to be at play. It is clear that merely running away from law enforcement by itself it not sufficient. An additional factor (e.g., high-crime area) is required. A buttoned heavy coat in summer (again, while running) is a great example of a particularized and objective fact justifying RS. Guarantee that you will get stopped by the police if you do this. I have been stopped for far less.

But, you know, it's a little open to debate. Which is why it was on the test.

[PennJD83]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

(I) No tip, no description of suspect, no high crime area, no report of a theft, no observation of him just committing an illegal act. Don't see Terry justifying a stop someone for wearing a heavy coat in the summer running.

When I decided that there was RS, I just thought about how RS can arise when an individual turns around and walks the other way after seeing a police officer...who knows

[lmr]

I think I said that there was RS because he was wearing a heavy winter coat AND he was running down the street...don't know if that was enough..

I don't think it matters I think they just wanted us to pick up on those facts and make the arguments/counter-arguments. Case law is very fact specific so don't think there's a right answer.

[PennJD83]

I think I said that there was RS because he was wearing a heavy winter coat AND he was running down the street...don't know if that was enough..

I don't think it matters I think they just wanted us to pick up on those facts and make the arguments/counter-arguments. Case law is very fact specific so don't think there's a right answer.

I was just about to say this

[lmr]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

(I) No tip, no description of suspect, no high crime area, no report of a theft, no observation of him just committing an illegal act. Don't see Terry justifying a stop someone for wearing a heavy coat in the summer running.

Supreme Court has never stated exactly what factors need to be at play. It is clear that merely running away from law enforcement by itself it not sufficient. An additional factor (e.g., high-crime area) is required. A buttoned heavy coat in summer (again, while running) is a great example of a particularized and objective fact justifying RS. Guarantee that you will get stopped by the police if you do this. I have been stopped for far less.

Just bc you'd get stop by police for doing it doesn't make it constitutional. Facts do not state he was in a high crime area. I'm sorry i just don't see a person running wearing a winter coat running in the summer being sufficient. All the case law i've read needed more than that-it's totally fact specific and just bc he can articulate those facts doesn't mean that arises to RS.

Also you need to articulate facts that CRIMINAL ACTIVITY is afoot or has been committed. What crime does the cop have RS to justify the detention?

[PennJD83]

So during Day 1, exam soft failed to open and I was forced hand write the exam. I did the best I could given the circumstances. I've heard that graders are a little more lenient towards the folks that hand wrote....but I only wrote FOUR pages for the PR/BA question (I just made up duties..not to obstruct justice, fairness, competence etc) and then totally blanked/ran out of time on the second question and wrote a few sentences of analysis. Also my PTs were shitty (good analysis at the beginning, shitty one sentence analysis at the end). Should I just gear up for February?

[lmr]

So during Day 1, exam soft failed to open and I was forced hand write the exam. I did the best I could given the circumstances. I've heard that graders are a little more lenient towards the folks that hand wrote....but I only wrote FOUR pages for the PR/BA question (I just made up duties..not to obstruct justice, fairness, competence etc) and then totally blanked/ran out of time on the second question and wrote a few sentences of analysis. Also my PTs were shitty (good analysis at the beginning, shitty one sentence analysis at the end). Should I just gear up for February?

Don't think handwriting or length is ever an issue (based on sample essays i've seen at baressays.com). I know a few people who didn't answer 2nd call of that question. You can def still pass-prob underestimating how you did on PT. MBE is also a good boost.

Just try not to think about it too much right now. if we have to do it again we'll have enough time when we get results on Nov 21st but i'm trying not to give myself a pass or fail until then. Speculation will just ruin you.

[lithoman]

Just bc you'd get stop by police for doing it doesn't make it constitutional. Facts do not state he was in a high crime area. I'm sorry i just don't see a person running wearing a winter coat running in the summer being sufficient. All the case law i've read needed more than that-it's totally fact specific and just bc he can articulate those facts doesn't mean that arises to RS.

Also you need to articulate facts that CRIMINAL ACTIVITY is afoot or has been committed. What crime does the cop have RS to justify the detention?

I didn't say he was in a high-crime area. I said that is one additional factor, like wearing a buttoned heavy coat in summer, that can be combined with running from police to create valid RS. What crime does a cop suspect when he stops someone running in a high-crime area? The crime of High Crime?

A few citations on page 2 if you need some for your dissertation:
http://www.kenwallentine.com/downloads/ ... 0Stops.pdf

[dtl]

RS for a stop. Not RS for a search.

(I) No tip, no description of suspect, no high crime area, no report of a theft, no observation of him just committing an illegal act. Don't see Terry justifying a stop someone for wearing a heavy coat in the summer running.

This question was based on a real case, at least loosely. US v. Campbell.

Basically, the court gives crazy leeway if the officers say that their professional experience as police officers or blahblah gave them further insight than a normal person would. Also, they are allowed to use "profiles" and say something like, "In my experience as a cop, someone running down the street during the summer with a winter coat on fits the profile of a car radio thief."

It is totally okay to argue either way, but the officer likely could get away with it IRL. Especially if he added that the guy looked nervous.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Trusts essay Q - trustee v. Charity - anyone else potentially spot a RAP issue that turned on charitable trust vs private trust? Was I crazy in thinking that?

RAP? For real? I'm going to say you were crazy thinking that ...

But for what it's worth, even if RAP were an issue on an actual "Property" essay I still wouldn't address it ... because I don't how, lol ...

[lmr]

Just bc you'd get stop by police for doing it doesn't make it constitutional. Facts do not state he was in a high crime area. I'm sorry i just don't see a person running wearing a winter coat running in the summer being sufficient. All the case law i've read needed more than that-it's totally fact specific and just bc he can articulate those facts doesn't mean that arises to RS.

Also you need to articulate facts that CRIMINAL ACTIVITY is afoot or has been committed. What crime does the cop have RS to justify the detention?

I didn't say he was in a high-crime area. I said that is one additional factor, like wearing a buttoned heavy coat in summer, that can be combined with running from police to create valid RS. What crime does a cop suspect when he stops someone running in a high-crime area? The crime of High Crime?

A few citations on page 2 if you need some for your dissertation:
http://www.kenwallentine.com/downloads/ ... 0Stops.pdf

Yeah bc I said high crime was sufficient...I was pointing out the lack of others facts taken together. No need to get defensive and mock me. Kindly grow the fk up .

[Jay Heizenburg]

Did anyone not mention that Dan, from the Criminal Procedure question, was wearing a button-up winter jacket in the summer which would create reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and frisk. I know this is an obvious point to most but I'm sure i just f$%#ed up someone's weekend.

I said it wasn't enough to rise to RS. Umm it's most def not enough to rise to RS.

I don't know if I agree with that. It's definitely out of the ordinary. As a layperson, I would be suspicious. And we have to remember, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.

[Jay Heizenburg]

So during Day 1, exam soft failed to open and I was forced hand write the exam. I did the best I could given the circumstances. I've heard that graders are a little more lenient towards the folks that hand wrote....but I only wrote FOUR pages for the PR/BA question (I just made up duties..not to obstruct justice, fairness, competence etc) and then totally blanked/ran out of time on the second question and wrote a few sentences of analysis. Also my PTs were shitty (good analysis at the beginning, shitty one sentence analysis at the end). Should I just gear up for February?

Are you serious? This shit almost happened to me! When I first tried to set up Tuesday morning it gave an error message telling me it couldn't load, I almost freaked out. I tried again and it worked, after an gawd-awful amount of time. I feel for you.

[Byejulyhifeb]

Trusts essay Q - trustee v. Charity - anyone else potentially spot a RAP issue that turned on charitable trust vs private trust? Was I crazy in thinking that?

Threw in a few lines about this. No RAP issue even if it could possibly apply cause she herself was the life in being and charity's interest was triggered immediately upon her death. Also mentioned how it could be argued that it's charity to charity exception anyways because charity had 1/2 interest in prop before the entire transfer

[Byejulyhifeb]

Did anyone not mention that Dan, from the Criminal Procedure question, was wearing a button-up winter jacket in the summer which would create reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and frisk. I know this is an obvious point to most but I'm sure i just f$%#ed up someone's weekend.

Said the prosecutor will take this line but it's not enough because i didn't think it would give a reasonable belief that the suspect was armed. Didn't see the connection between thick coat and being armed. No facts about him being sketchy specifically to the cop to trigger the cop's safety

Also on the radio part...said it's too tainted from the original violation that it shouldn't come in either under plain view. Prosecutor would argue independent or inevitable exception because D was running down the street and it could have just fallen out by its own force. But the argument would likely fail cause the "taint wasn't purged enough"

To be honest I had no fuckin idea what I was writing

[BeAboutIt]

Did the corporations essay deal with Rule 10(b)6 and/or Rule 16(b), because it vaguely looked like insider trading and short swing profits....

[Law-So-Hard]

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

TLDR;
the stop was justified under the "Terry" exception to warrant requirement, plain feel pat down of his outer winter coat was ok, the contraband then fell out onto the public street. so no 4th A violations.