MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

[somuchbooty]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

I did too. Strength in numbers.

no, not me 10500. How was the 20k "to stop a lawsuit" foreseeable?

breaching party had notice of what they were for and the contract and that they could only do it with that particular type of shit.

[odoylerulez]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

I did too. Strength in numbers.

no, not me 10500. How was the 20k "to stop a lawsuit" foreseeable?

There was a fact in there that put the party on notice I think.

[musicfor18]

I think there are two different questions we are all talking about and confusing each other over. Damn the world that we can't be specific lol.

Yeah I think you're right lol. Trying to discuss what happened without going into specifics makes this largely a moot point. I feel like the one in question was running a heck of a lot of misdirection though, and had elements of passenger standing, vehicle exception, and SITLA in it. It's just so damn frustrating that we all clearly knew the law well and still may've gotten it wrong.

It was the standing one that I had a hard time with. Not sure what the other one was but that's ok.

My brain is fried, and I only remember the one question apparently (unless I have two conflated in my mind lol). I will just say that I think that passengers have standing to challenge being seized in a vehicle, but not any searches of the vehicle regardless of the police's justification of the vlaidity of the search. Lord I hope that's right lol.

Passengers have standing to challenge seizure of a car they're in. They also have standing to challenge any search of something in the vehicle if they have a possessory interest in it. You can always challenge a search of your own "effects," just not someone else's effects.

[Arbinshire]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

I did too. Strength in numbers.

no, not me 10500. How was the 20k "to stop a lawsuit" foreseeable?

There was a fact in there that put the party on notice I think.

Remember, if you give a higher figure and they benefit, you're punishing an alternate party. Your duty is to make the party whole and not reward them for someone else's bad behavior. Give them enough to do that, foreseeables which are known, incidentals and costs, and nothing more. Higher figures are inappropriate.

[kyle010723]

There was a fact in there that put the party on notice I think.

But the suit can be settled for 10,000, 100,000, 1M, or litigate all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't know how that's foreseeable. But you're probably right and I was wrong.

[Calicakes]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[odoylerulez]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

I did too. Strength in numbers.

no, not me 10500. How was the 20k "to stop a lawsuit" foreseeable?

There was a fact in there that put the party on notice I think.

I figured that b/c he told the seller he had a K to resell or do something with whatever he was buying, it was foreseeable that if seller failed to perform then buyer would be forced to breach and get sued.

That was my exact thought process.

[Arbinshire]

I hate arguing parents with children that don't explicitly consent to allow entry of a house. That always pisses me off.

[musicfor18]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

[somuchbooty]

I hate arguing parents with children that don't explicitly consent to allow entry of a house. That always pisses me off.

lol nobody will tell me where the illegal-ness started there.

[jaysnooginz]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

This is super incorrect. She may have been talking about a state rule, but at least constitutionally, the automobile exception applies to containers in cars.

[Veridian40]

I think there are two different questions we are all talking about and confusing each other over. Damn the world that we can't be specific lol.

Yeah I think you're right lol. Trying to discuss what happened without going into specifics makes this largely a moot point. I feel like the one in question was running a heck of a lot of misdirection though, and had elements of passenger standing, vehicle exception, and SITLA in it. It's just so damn frustrating that we all clearly knew the law well and still may've gotten it wrong.

It was the standing one that I had a hard time with. Not sure what the other one was but that's ok.

My brain is fried, and I only remember the one question apparently (unless I have two conflated in my mind lol). I will just say that I think that passengers have standing to challenge being seized in a vehicle, but not any searches of the vehicle regardless of the police's justification of the vlaidity of the search. Lord I hope that's right lol.

Passengers have standing to challenge seizure of a car they're in. They also have standing to challenge any search of something in the vehicle if they have a possessory interest in it.

I disagree, if the reason that the police say they are opening it is pursuant to the vehicle search exception. I don't think a passenger can challenge that. But, at this point, there's no reason to talk about it honestly. In real life, there would be motions filed on both sides and it would probably make its way up to the state's highest appellate court. But here, we had to make a call in a four option multiple choice question. Gotta love it.

[spacecaps]

.

[Arbinshire]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

Once the exigency aspect is removed, you need to show that PC to a neutral and detached magistrate. Searches of the car are only allowable if the defendant is loose, and the scope of the search is within the wingspan of the original party.

[victortsoi]

30500 right?

i don't even remember the question i just remember 30500 and picked that one lol

Same boat.

I did too. Strength in numbers.

no, not me 10500. How was the 20k "to stop a lawsuit" foreseeable?

There was a fact in there that put the party on notice I think.

I figured that b/c he told the seller he had a K to resell or do something with whatever he was buying, it was foreseeable that if seller failed to perform then buyer would be forced to breach and get sued.

That was my exact thought process.

I thought that it would absurd to award the settlement, no way that's foreseeable, think about it, crazy rabbit hole.

Also, I said there was expectation of privacy, but that's wrong. Also said that something' naughty was not consentable, also wrong.

[Veridian40]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

Yeah I'm with you.

[musicfor18]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

Just because a police department says you need a warrant doesn't mean the 4th Am requires it. They can always have regs that are more restrictive than what the constitution requires.

[kyle010723]

Honestly this makes me feel slightly better because it seems everyone had similar issues on the same questions. So far we haven't really miss any trivial ones that reasonable minds cannot differ

[odoylerulez]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

My old class notes say you can't if it's locked. Proper thing to do is for police to seize the item and get a warrant. Would be a different case if it was, say, a paper bag like in Ross.

Strangely enough, that professor was also a former cop. But professors aren't always right and I'm not sure on this one anymore.

[Veridian40]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

Once the exigency aspect is removed, you need to show that PC to a neutral and detached magistrate. Searches of the car are only allowable if the defendant is loose, and the scope of the search is within the wingspan of the original party.

No that's not right, the Ross case that was posted earlier is explicit on that. The vehicle exception doesn't have anything to do with safety, so there's no "wing span" element at all. It has to do with the fact that cars drive around and are never in the same place, so getting a warrant is impracticable. Once you have it stopped with PC, you can search the entire thing for evidence of what you have PC to search for.

[jaysnooginz]

Did any of you take crim pro? Look up California v. Acevedo.

[olive16]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

True, but if you are pulled over for speeding, there's no PC to believe evidence of speeding will be found in the car (may be confusing the facts of a few Qs)

[musicfor18]

lol all these questions sucked. I thought the dude's suitcase was off limits at the time. No idea why or if I'm right or wrong.

Can't search the suitcase without a warrant. I'm married to a cop and I checked with her. LOL.

The offenders were already in the backseat of the police car. No chance they could run off, so need a warrant for the suitcase.

If you have PC that evidence or contraband is in the car, you CAN search any containers in the car that could reasonably contain that evidence or contraband.

Once the exigency aspect is removed, you need to show that PC to a neutral and detached magistrate. Searches of the car are only allowable if the defendant is loose, and the scope of the search is within the wingspan of the original party.

You're talking about SILA. I'm talking about auto exception (which is why I said "if there's PC". If there's PC to search, then the person being secured or not is irrelevant.

[spacecaps]

uhh guys why is there a black dot on this thread? am i the only one who sees it?