California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[Law-So-Hard]

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....

most ppl wrote on 10b5, not sure 16b applies b/c there weren't enough facts in that regard

[Byejulyhifeb]

Either way the argument can work. I personally don't see how running with a coat on =


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”.

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.

[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....

most ppl wrote on 10b5, not sure 16b applies b/c there weren't enough facts in that regard

I raised and dismissed 16(b) because we didn't know how long attorney held on to stocks before selling or how much percentage of the stock she owed, but since facts said publicly traded company, $200k profit, and that she was technically an "insider" because she was an agent of the corporation when she obtained the information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just curious.

[Law-So-Hard]

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....

most ppl wrote on 10b5, not sure 16b applies b/c there weren't enough facts in that regard

I raised and dismissed 16(b) because we didn't know how long attorney held on to stocks before selling or how much percentage of the stock she owed, but since facts said publicly traded company, $200k profit, and that she was technically an "insider" because she was an agent of the corporation when she obtained the information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just curious.

Doesn't hurt

[Law-So-Hard]

Either way the argument can work. I personally don't see how running with a coat on =


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”.

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.

I agree. It makes for a good essay topic because it's open to debate.

[Furball]

Anyone discuss the exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for the crim procedure question re: radio. I didn't and now I'm wondering if that was an issue. Crap.

[david33mba]

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....

most ppl wrote on 10b5, not sure 16b applies b/c there weren't enough facts in that regard

I raised and dismissed 16(b) because we didn't know how long attorney held on to stocks before selling or how much percentage of the stock she owed, but since facts said publicly traded company, $200k profit, and that she was technically an "insider" because she was an agent of the corporation when she obtained the information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just curious.

I thought the question asked what actions the client had against the attorney? Why would insider trading (crime) come into play?

[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....

most ppl wrote on 10b5, not sure 16b applies b/c there weren't enough facts in that regard

I raised and dismissed 16(b) because we didn't know how long attorney held on to stocks before selling or how much percentage of the stock she owed, but since facts said publicly traded company, $200k profit, and that she was technically an "insider" because she was an agent of the corporation when she obtained the information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just curious.

I thought the question asked what actions the client had against the attorney? Why would insider trading (crime) come into play?

The lawyer is considered an agent of the corporation. She used confidential information she learned during the course of her representation about her client's tender offer for the company's stock. Her purchase of the stock drove up the price so client had to pay $1 million more than what he was originally going to pay. That's insider trading.

Private citizens can bring 10(b)5 claims against individuals engaging in insider trading.

[david33mba]

I raised and dismissed 16(b) because we didn't know how long attorney held on to stocks before selling or how much percentage of the stock she owed, but since facts said publicly traded company, $200k profit, and that she was technically an "insider" because she was an agent of the corporation when she obtained the information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just curious.[/quote]

I thought the question asked what actions the client had against the attorney? Why would insider trading (crime) come into play?[/quote]

The lawyer is considered an agent of the corporation. She used confidential information she learned during the course of her representation about her client's tender offer for the company's stock. Her purchase of the stock drove up the price so client had to pay $1 million more than what he was originally going to pay. That's insider trading.

Private citizens can bring 10(b)5 claims against individuals engaging in insider trading.[/quote]

Ah ok I wasn't aware private citizens can bring insider trading action. Thanks.

[PennJD83]

So...I also realized I forgot to erase the notes at the top of my PT. Is that really bad?

[EZ as AsDf]

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.

Good shit.

Wiki.

Forgot to say "articulable" and "afoot"

[Carryon]

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 thought so too

[Carryon]

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 oinnocuous.

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.

I also talk about the car radio. Not sure if the officer knew that that was contra band enough to arrest him. Did officer know that it was stolen?

[Furball]

Weren't we suppose to talk about the radio anyway bc the call of the question was whether it should/shouldn't be suppressed?? Or am I tripping out?

[Byejulyhifeb]

Weren't we suppose to talk about the radio anyway bc the call of the question was whether it should/shouldn't be suppressed?? Or am I tripping out?

Radio was the call of the question but it's admittance was dependent on the initial stop/search and subsequent FOPT issues

[duskfall]

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 thought so too

wait, that was a crim pro question?!

[InTheWideLand I Walk]

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 thought so too

wait, that was a crim pro question?!

i hate to break it to you. but im sure that entire essay was crim pro. i can see how someone could have made it a 4 subject crim pro/crim law/PR/evidence crossover but i think the crim pro was 85-90% of it.

[CalBar2014]

Can someone help me with grading of essays? For example, if you spot every issue, correctly state the law, and apply the law to all the relevant facts, what does that get you? I guess there is no such thing as a 100.

Likewise, if you only get 2/3 of the law right, but apply made up law on the other 1/3 to the facts, what does that get you?

I haven't found a good explanation of the grading scale anywhere.

[EZ as AsDf]

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?

Is not there a case on point- Draper? Anybody read that case. It's kind of in my head: a guy wears a heavy coat in the summertime, gets on a bus to (or from) Florida. Officer stops the bus, ...

(Damnit, I didn't talk about Seizure)

[Snape]

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 oinnocuous.

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.

I also talk about the car radio. Not sure if the officer knew that that was contra band enough to arrest him. Did officer know that it was stolen?

Stop was justified by Terry

Radio fell out of heavy jacket running in plain view…one does not normally run down the street then have a hidden radio fall out of his jacket (1) without at least RS of criminal activity (stops with much less have been upheld and (2) the criminal nature of a radio falling out of a mans jacket after running down the street is immediately apparent in plain view…of course radio was unknown until after stop by courts have upheld much much less in justifying an initial stop….in the end I'm sure so long as you apply the correct law and apply the facts with good analysis then the conclusion is justified either way and shouldn't hurt…but stating that a Terry stop was certainly unjustifiable is just wrong and a complete error.

[MinEMorris]

I don't believe that the question specifically said that the radio fell out because of the pat down. I think it only said that it fell out during the pat down. Maybe we were supposed to talk about inevitable discovery? Or I guess more accurately, discuss that the pat down may not be the but-for cause for discovering the radio, therefore making the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine inapplicable.

Also, isn't there some "flight from a known police officer" doctrine that give an officer PC if a suspect runs away after spotting the officer? I wasn't sure whether there were enough facts to justify raising that point, but I considered it.

And am I wrong to believe that the Miranda question was a slam dunk (i.e. that the testimony should be excluded)? Seemed like it didn't matter whether he was read his rights or not.

[Law-So-Hard]

statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment purposes at trial

I discussed the voluntariness of the confession but my conclusion was fluffy, I said the confession appeared voluntary but Miranda was violated so its inadmissible except to impeach

Im curious what ppl wrote about his motion for self representation

[Law-So-Hard]

Can someone help me with grading of essays? For example, if you spot every issue, correctly state the law, and apply the law to all the relevant facts, what does that get you? I guess there is no such thing as a 100.

Likewise, if you only get 2/3 of the law right, but apply made up law on the other 1/3 to the facts, what does that get you?

I haven't found a good explanation of the grading scale anywhere.

If you get every issue and have a decent analysis and it is irac-ed it would be a 75-80 based on what I've seen on bar essays dot com. BarBri's grading sheet provided points for little obvious things for example each hearsay issue go thru legal and logical relevance and define hearsay etc.

I concluded after this summer that they want you to write Ernest Hemingway terse with bullshit fiction "analysis" that you read between the lines to find

[Jesus God]

I'm not gonna lie, you are all probably failing this exam. Good luck practicing Civil Procedure MBEs and taking it again in February, fuckers! Hahahahahaaha.

[BeAboutIt]

I'm not gonna lie, you are all probably failing this exam. Good luck practicing Civil Procedure MBEs and taking it again in February, fuckers! Hahahahahaaha.

^ Obviously a bitter repeat taker