MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

[PJP]

.

[jaysnooginz]

I did think some of the questions were impossibly hard while reading them, then I got to the answer choices and 3 of the choices could not possibly be the correct answers because they were out in left field. Was weird, I never had any questions like that in the BarBri sets.

[musicfor18]

.

[LAW813FL]

.

[kyle010723]

Agreed. And the other three choices didn't really make much sense, I thought.

I hope they didn't throw a curve ball with the Art and Cl number in the end... What if they threw in the "property clause" from Art I (the IP clause) and we all picked it? Lol

[jaysnooginz]

Property power is definitely a stronger power than commerce. It is absolute.

[odoylerulez]

Automobile warrant exception doesn't apply to locked containers. I don't remember what the item in question was, though. I know there's a case where a paper bag was recovered from a trunk and that needed no warrant though. Just need PC for that.

SITLA doesn't apply if arrestee(s) have already been detained and moved away from the car.

[LAW813FL]

Agreed. And the other three choices didn't really make much sense, I thought.

I hope they didn't throw a curve ball with the Art and Cl number in the end... What if they threw in the "property clause" from Art I (the IP clause) and we all picked it? Lol

That would just be mean.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Property power is definitely a stronger power than commerce. It is absolute.

Yea

[LAW813FL]

Property power is definitely a stronger power than commerce. It is absolute.

Good to know. My total right is now 4, count em, 4.

[Veridian40]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

[spacecaps]

I did think some of the questions were impossibly hard while reading them, then I got to the answer choices and 3 of the choices could not possibly be the correct answers because they were out in left field. Was weird, I never had any questions like that in the BarBri sets.

this is exactly how i felt too. after reading it, i would cross out blatantly false statements of the law and ridiculous answers (usually 2 of the choices), but then i had a hard time picking btwn the remaining two

[jaysnooginz]

SITLA applies in two cases: Arrestee can still get back in car (was arrested but now running away) and when officers have reasonable suspicion that evidence for which the person was stopped/arrested will be found in car.

[odoylerulez]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

Was it a locked container/suitcase though? I honestly don't remember. That's an exception to the exception.

[Veridian40]

Automobile warrant exception doesn't apply to locked containers. I don't remember what the item in question was, though. I know there's a case where a paper bag was recovered from a trunk and that needed no warrant though. Just need PC for that.

SITLA doesn't apply if arrestee(s) have already been detained and moved away from the car.

It definitely does. That's one of the five things I'm 100% confident on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross

[somuchbooty]

.

[jaysnooginz]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

Was it a locked container/suitcase though? I honestly don't remember. That's an exception to the exception.

SITLA applies to ANYTHING in passenger compartment. ANYTHING.

[LAW813FL]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

Was it a locked container/suitcase though? I honestly don't remember. That's an exception to the exception.

I thought it was a suitcase in the trunk but now i don't even remember

it was like inception for car searches.

[RufioRufio]

.

[jaysnooginz]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

Was it a locked container/suitcase though? I honestly don't remember. That's an exception to the exception.

I thought it was a suitcase in the trunk but now i don't even remember

We are probably talking about two different things.

[spacecaps]

Automobile warrant exception doesn't apply to locked containers. I don't remember what the item in question was, though. I know there's a case where a paper bag was recovered from a trunk and that needed no warrant though. Just need PC for that.

SITLA doesn't apply if arrestee(s) have already been detained and moved away from the car.

It definitely does. That's one of the five things I'm 100% confident on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross

but they have to have PC for the item for the automobile exception to apply, dont they? like if they have PC for a machine gun in the car, they cant just search a locked box, bc it couldn't reasonably be in a box. but obviously drugs are different.

[Veridian40]

Hold on. I thought the rule for searching the passenger compartment was that, once arrestee is secured, they can't search unless they have reason to believe evidence off the crime of arrest is inside? You can't just put the guy in the squad car and then search the car incident to arrest.

There' no grab area implicated in a vehicle search, because it's not a safety concern, it's a concern that a vehicle is mobile and never in the same place so getting a warrant would be impracticable. Once the cops have cause to believe there's contraband inside, they have carte blanche to search it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

That said, no clue if I got that question right. This is why I MUCH prefer essays over MC...

Was it a locked container/suitcase though? I honestly don't remember. That's an exception to the exception.

I honestly don't remember. This is just another in a long line of relatively simple concepts that were made unnecessarily difficult lol.

[kyle010723]

So maybe we didn't take the MBE after all and it was just one giant inception..

[odoylerulez]

Automobile warrant exception doesn't apply to locked containers. I don't remember what the item in question was, though. I know there's a case where a paper bag was recovered from a trunk and that needed no warrant though. Just need PC for that.

SITLA doesn't apply if arrestee(s) have already been detained and moved away from the car.

It definitely does. That's one of the five things I'm 100% confident on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross

Isn't Ross an automobile exception case, not a SITLA case? I'm having trouble loading this. On my phone in bed.

[somuchbooty]

Alright we've all probably been too specific here and this is probably unhelpful to our psyches anyway.

BROAD question, do we see the results/wrong answers/right answers when results are released?