. Forum

[forza]

From PA Crim distinction outline: "Absent exigent circumstances, forcible entry without following the knock and announce requirement constitutes a violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. "

Does this mean that unlike CL, where if a cop doesn't knock and announce that in and of itself will not trigger exclusionary rule, in PA if you fail to knock and announce thats it, its tainted and nothing can be introduced?

Here's what I understand about "knock and announce"--not knowing any PA distinctions: it does not trigger the exclusionary rule for anything obtained in an otherwise valid search/seizure. It will, however, invalidate an arrest.

So, cops have a search warrant for your house and come to your house to execute it. Instead of knocking and announcing, they just bust down the door and run in and arrest you. Then they search your house. The search is cool; the arrest is invalid (and, presumably, anything found on your body would be excluded as fruits of an unlawful arrest).

[BarbellDreams]

From PA Crim distinction outline: "Absent exigent circumstances, forcible entry without following the knock and announce requirement constitutes a violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. "

Does this mean that unlike CL, where if a cop doesn't knock and announce that in and of itself will not trigger exclusionary rule, in PA if you fail to knock and announce thats it, its tainted and nothing can be introduced?

I don't know if that is what they mean.

The "no knock" IS a violation of your rights re:unreasonable searches and seizures. It just doesn't trigger exclusion. I think that what federal courts says.

The way I understood it is that while its technically a violation, the Court stated that its not a substantial enough violation to exclude evidence (I wanna say this is Hudson v. Michigan but I am totally shooting in the dark here). Thats under CL, so assuming I am understanding that correctly, is PA the same way?

Its also kinda weird how the Court in Mapp describes exclusionary rule as exclusion based on a constitutional right of the defendant being violated, in Patane goes on to show how the constitution is different than Miranda and how important constitutional rights are for exclusion while not as important for Miranda and then gets to Hudson and just says "Well, yeah your 4th amendment right was violated, but not exclusion cause its wasn't violated THAT badly."`

[09042014]

I wouldn't by the NCBE MBE Q's. I got teh first set. And I've seen almost all of them in Themis PQs. Not worth it.

[Dr. Review]

The way I understand it, PA provides greater protection, and no knock = no evidence.

[kalvano]

The common law says that a violation of knock and announce is not significant enough to justify exclusion of the evidence obtained, because there is a valid warrant. It sounds like PA is going a bit further and applying exclusion unless there are exigent circumstances like destruction of evidence.

[Agoraphobia]

I wouldn't by the NCBE MBE Q's. I got teh first set. And I've seen almost all of them in Themis PQs. Not worth it.

The second set was better.

[cardinalandgold]

Anyone else having trouble with NY CPLR? How well do we need to know the structure of the NY court system, and where appeals go? There are just too many details to remember. I feel like I should just hit the big points (summary judgment, motion to dismiss, preclusion, personal JX, statutes of limitation etc) and call it a day. What's everyone else's approach to this subject? Can't wait until this is all over...

[releasethehounds]

Had to have my dog put to sleep this afternoon and now I'm having a bona fide freak out moment after getting several practice essays in a row where I had no idea whatsoever how to approach the question. Legitimately feeling like there's a chance I might fail this thing despite all of the work I've put in over the last two months.

Needless to say, I'm having a rough time of it today.

I agree with others, today isn't a day to study. Beyond that, I really doubt anything you're doing today is actually representative of your preparation. Too much stress, too much emotion, all of which is unrelated to and on top of exam stress. This sounds really callous and I do NOT AT ALL mean it to sound that way, but losing a pet is a distraction. And it's going to be a distraction that you're not going to be able to get away from for at least a little while. Trying to take these essays while your mind is so preoccupied isn't going to be indicative of what you can do at all. So yeah. Take some time off. Your mind's got to need it.

I'm really sorry to hear about your dog. I've been there, it's so freaking hard. Obviously this isn't the most ideal time, but you need to let yourself focus on that for a little bit. The test can fuck off for a day or two and you won't fail.

[Bikeflip]

I wouldn't by the NCBE MBE Q's. I got teh first set. And I've seen almost all of them in Themis PQs. Not worth it.

The second set was better.

How does either set 1 or 2 stack up in terms of difficulty? Easy, Reasonable, or Themis Mixed Set 11?

[Agoraphobia]

I wouldn't by the NCBE MBE Q's. I got teh first set. And I've seen almost all of them in Themis PQs. Not worth it.

The second set was better.

How does either set 1 or 2 stack up in terms of difficulty? Easy, Reasonable, or Themis Mixed Set 11?

Somewhere between easy and reasonable. Nowhere near Themis set 11.

[releasethehounds]

I wouldn't by the NCBE MBE Q's. I got teh first set. And I've seen almost all of them in Themis PQs. Not worth it.

The second set was better.

How does either set 1 or 2 stack up in terms of difficulty? Easy, Reasonable, or Themis Mixed Set 11?

Somewhere between easy and reasonable. Nowhere near Themis set 11.

Thank. God.

[TheBeard]

Is it possible that the mixed set questions are not adjusting in difficulty for me? I swear, this is not a humblebrag or anything like that, I'm just seriously wondering why everyone has experienced an uptick in difficulty, yet my percentage correct continues to hover between 70 and 75%, with a low of 65% on mixed set 8. Is anyone else experiencing this?

[JuTMSY4]

Is it possible that the mixed set questions are not adjusting in difficulty for me? I swear, this is not a humblebrag or anything like that, I'm just seriously wondering why everyone has experienced an uptick in difficulty, yet my percentage correct continues to hover between 70 and 75%, with a low of 65% on mixed set 8. Is anyone else experiencing this?

it seems, and I've sort of hit this point, where you either have a basic understanding of the rules and their exceptions and even if you don't know the answer to a particular question, you can snuff out the other ones and either get a 1/2 shot, or nail it down by full elimination. I'm starting to get there.

Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but it's a good sign.

[BarbellDreams]

Oh God, I just went over a Model Answer for one of the practice essays that cited to 2 different treatises. I hope my grader for the real thing isn't some nerdy prof wanting anything close to that type of precision.

[JD_done]

Is it possible that the mixed set questions are not adjusting in difficulty for me? I swear, this is not a humblebrag or anything like that, I'm just seriously wondering why everyone has experienced an uptick in difficulty, yet my percentage correct continues to hover between 70 and 75%, with a low of 65% on mixed set 8. Is anyone else experiencing this?

it seems, and I've sort of hit this point, where you either have a basic understanding of the rules and their exceptions and even if you don't know the answer to a particular question, you can snuff out the other ones and either get a 1/2 shot, or nail it down by full elimination. I'm starting to get there.

Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but it's a good sign.

I'm at the same point. I've been scoring well and thought Themis messed up my questions. I did some questions in the Strategies & Tactics book to compare and scored the same. I hope it predicts that I can have some cushion for the NY essays which have not been pretty. I missed a municipality issue because I didn't realize that "T Town" was an actual town. I thought it was like "C Town" which is a chain of supermarkets in NY. Idiot.

[JD_done]

Had to have my dog put to sleep this afternoon and now I'm having a bona fide freak out moment after getting several practice essays in a row where I had no idea whatsoever how to approach the question. Legitimately feeling like there's a chance I might fail this thing despite all of the work I've put in over the last two months.

Needless to say, I'm having a rough time of it today.

I'm very sorry denim. What an awful thing to go through. When I've had some life event that feels like the universe pulled the rug out from under me, I've been able to get through stuff by staying in the moment, not thinking about anything too far ahead. Just putting one foot in front of the other and doing the next thing I have in front of me.

[locusdelicti]

From PA Crim distinction outline: "Absent exigent circumstances, forcible entry without following the knock and announce requirement constitutes a violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. "

Does this mean that unlike CL, where if a cop doesn't knock and announce that in and of itself will not trigger exclusionary rule, in PA if you fail to knock and announce thats it, its tainted and nothing can be introduced?

Yes, that's what it means.

[locusdelicti]

Oh God, I just went over a Model Answer for one of the practice essays that cited to 2 different treatises. I hope my grader for the real thing isn't some nerdy prof wanting anything close to that type of precision.

The model answers for PA are nothing like your answers have to be.

And the "model" answers for NJ make me wonder about the quality of basic writing skills there.

It's like we're fucked in PA and NJ is like "who cares?" :/

[locusdelicti]

Had to have my dog put to sleep this afternoon and now I'm having a bona fide freak out moment after getting several practice essays in a row where I had no idea whatsoever how to approach the question. Legitimately feeling like there's a chance I might fail this thing despite all of the work I've put in over the last two months.

Needless to say, I'm having a rough time of it today.

What an awful time to lose a friend. I'm truly sorry.

Try to stay calm and come back to it maybe after taking a day off. You'll remember more than you think.

[releasethehounds]

Is it possible that the mixed set questions are not adjusting in difficulty for me? I swear, this is not a humblebrag or anything like that, I'm just seriously wondering why everyone has experienced an uptick in difficulty, yet my percentage correct continues to hover between 70 and 75%, with a low of 65% on mixed set 8. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I'm at MBE 14 and I would say that with the exception of MBE 13 where I felt like I was doing horrifically (ended up with a 64%, which...better than I thought, I will happily take it), I've ended up in the 70-80% category. But the questions are definitely bullshit and tough, I've just gotten better at looking at answer choices and being able to kick out enough choices that a guess becomes easier. I wouldn't say the questions are ones I KNOW the answer to, and I would definitely say a good chunk of what I get right is nothing more than a (pretty lucky and somewhat) educated guess.

Also I'm fucking terrible at the essays. So it all evens out.

[forza]

Starting to think I'm as ready for this thing as I'll ever be. Let's just get it over with already.

[Niddar]

Themis MBE questions test improvised explosive device law too:

The plaintiff, an encyclopedia salesman, approached the grounds on which the defendant's house was situated. He saw a sign that said, "No salesmen. Trespassers will be prosecuted. Proceed at your own risk." Although the plaintiff had not been invited to enter, he ignored the sign and drove up the driveway toward the house. As he rounded a curve, a powerful explosive charge buried in the driveway exploded, and the plaintiff was injured. Can the plaintiff recover damages from the defendant for his injuries?

[forza]

K, Themis, I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with this one. (Contracts; mixed MBE set 15 spoiler):

A famous actress entered into a written agreement with her friend, a well-known landscape architect respected for his unique stonework, in which the friend agreed, for a fixed fee, to landscape the grounds of the actress's new mansion, and, upon the actress's approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the grounds with foliage, stonework, and flowers. The agreement was silent as to assignment or delegation by either party. Before beginning the work, the friend sold his landscape architecture firm to a third party under an agreement in which the friend assigned to the third party, and the third party agreed to complete, the contract between the actress and the friend. The third party, also an experienced landscape architect of excellent repute, advised the actress of the assignment and supplied her with information confirming both the third party's financial responsibility and past success. Is the actress obligated to permit the third party to perform the agreement between the actress and the friend?

A. Yes, because the agreement contained no prohibition against assignment or delegation.
B. Yes, because the actress received adequate assurances of the third party's ability to complete the job.
C. No, because the friend's duties were of a personal nature, involving his reputation, taste, and skill.
D. No, because the friend's purported delegation to the third party of his obligations to the actress effected a novation.

Answer choice C is correct. Usually, obligations can be delegated unless the contract prohibits it (which is not the case here), or the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. The fact pattern makes clear that the friend was known for his "unique stonework," which means that the performance that the actress bargained for was for the friend's personal reputation, taste and skill, not another's. Thus, answer choice A and B are incorrect because the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. Answer choice D is incorrect because, for a novation to exist, the actress would have had to release the friend from liability and agree to allow the third party to take over the contract; none of that happened in the fact pattern.

The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

The right answer to that question should be A and I don't give a crap if the poorly-reasoned explanation says otherwise.

[thebull]

K, Themis, I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with this one. (Contracts; mixed MBE set 15 spoiler):

A famous actress entered into a written agreement with her friend, a well-known landscape architect respected for his unique stonework, in which the friend agreed, for a fixed fee, to landscape the grounds of the actress's new mansion, and, upon the actress's approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the grounds with foliage, stonework, and flowers. The agreement was silent as to assignment or delegation by either party. Before beginning the work, the friend sold his landscape architecture firm to a third party under an agreement in which the friend assigned to the third party, and the third party agreed to complete, the contract between the actress and the friend. The third party, also an experienced landscape architect of excellent repute, advised the actress of the assignment and supplied her with information confirming both the third party's financial responsibility and past success. Is the actress obligated to permit the third party to perform the agreement between the actress and the friend?

A. Yes, because the agreement contained no prohibition against assignment or delegation.
B. Yes, because the actress received adequate assurances of the third party's ability to complete the job.
C. No, because the friend's duties were of a personal nature, involving his reputation, taste, and skill.
D. No, because the friend's purported delegation to the third party of his obligations to the actress effected a novation.

Answer choice C is correct. Usually, obligations can be delegated unless the contract prohibits it (which is not the case here), or the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. The fact pattern makes clear that the friend was known for his "unique stonework," which means that the performance that the actress bargained for was for the friend's personal reputation, taste and skill, not another's. Thus, answer choice A and B are incorrect because the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. Answer choice D is incorrect because, for a novation to exist, the actress would have had to release the friend from liability and agree to allow the third party to take over the contract; none of that happened in the fact pattern.

The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

The right answer to that question should be A and I don't give a crap if the poorly-reasoned explanation says otherwise.

It's not really poorly reasoned, that's one of the main exceptions to being able to freely assign or delegate a contract--a unique performance.

[releasethehounds]

K, Themis, I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with this one. (Contracts; mixed MBE set 15 spoiler):

A famous actress entered into a written agreement with her friend, a well-known landscape architect respected for his unique stonework, in which the friend agreed, for a fixed fee, to landscape the grounds of the actress's new mansion, and, upon the actress's approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the grounds with foliage, stonework, and flowers. The agreement was silent as to assignment or delegation by either party. Before beginning the work, the friend sold his landscape architecture firm to a third party under an agreement in which the friend assigned to the third party, and the third party agreed to complete, the contract between the actress and the friend. The third party, also an experienced landscape architect of excellent repute, advised the actress of the assignment and supplied her with information confirming both the third party's financial responsibility and past success. Is the actress obligated to permit the third party to perform the agreement between the actress and the friend?

A. Yes, because the agreement contained no prohibition against assignment or delegation.
B. Yes, because the actress received adequate assurances of the third party's ability to complete the job.
C. No, because the friend's duties were of a personal nature, involving his reputation, taste, and skill.
D. No, because the friend's purported delegation to the third party of his obligations to the actress effected a novation.

Answer choice C is correct. Usually, obligations can be delegated unless the contract prohibits it (which is not the case here), or the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. The fact pattern makes clear that the friend was known for his "unique stonework," which means that the performance that the actress bargained for was for the friend's personal reputation, taste and skill, not another's. Thus, answer choice A and B are incorrect because the contract is for personal services involving personal taste and skill. Answer choice D is incorrect because, for a novation to exist, the actress would have had to release the friend from liability and agree to allow the third party to take over the contract; none of that happened in the fact pattern.

The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

The right answer to that question should be A and I don't give a crap if the poorly-reasoned explanation says otherwise.

Yeah methinks the key word is unique. if he's unique there's no way the second guy can replicate his performance or really fill in. would probably trigger the exception.