MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

Veridian40 · Post by **Veridian40** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:44 am

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

Lol dude, I feel like we're right on this, probably best to just quit arguing it. Nothing we can do now...

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:45 am

SITLA doesn't require PC, requires reasonable suspicion. Sitla doesn't apply to trunks or containers in trunks.

Automobile exception to warrant requirement applies to whole damn car and anything in it, and requires PC.

Veridian40 · Post by **Veridian40** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:45 am

I think a black dot means you posted in the thread, right? I'm new here but that's what it usually means.

kyle010723 · Post by **kyle010723** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:45 am

Veridian40 wrote:I think a black dot means you posted in the thread, right? I'm new here but that's what it usually means.

Yes

Arbinshire · Post by **Arbinshire** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:45 am

spacecaps · Post by **spacecaps** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:45 am

oh ok. i thought i posted in the barbri thread too but the dot wasnt there, so i was confused

Veridian40 · Post by **Veridian40** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:46 am

jaysnooginz wrote:SITLA doesn't require PC, requires reasonable suspicion. Sitla doesn't apply to trunks or containers in trunks.

Automobile exception to warrant requirement applies to whole damn car and anything in it, and requires PC.

I agree with you completely, if my earlier post wasn't clear on that point.

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:46 am

Veridian40 wrote:
jaysnooginz wrote:SITLA doesn't require PC, requires reasonable suspicion. Sitla doesn't apply to trunks or containers in trunks.

Automobile exception to warrant requirement applies to whole damn car and anything in it, and requires PC.
I agree with you completely, if my earlier post wasn't clear on that point.

Ya, I was talking to the other people

spacecaps · Post by **spacecaps** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:47 am

what about the law regarding ownership of a certain dangerous reptile? const'l?

kyle010723 · Post by **kyle010723** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:47 am

Haha, all you Crim Pro guru. My only crim pro was Barbri

Veridian40 · Post by **Veridian40** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:48 am

Arbinshire wrote:
Veridian40 wrote:
Arbinshire wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:
Calicakes wrote:
somuchbooty wrote: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.
Not so sure. You have multiple defendants detained and the exigency is no longer in play, which was the entire rationale for the reduced requirements for automotive searches. You have the car. Its not going anywhere without your control. You have reasonable opportunity now to get a warrant. You don't need to hurry up and search as you've got everything needed. Tie the string on the case and get a warrant.

I work in criminal law, and I have never, ever heard of the police getting a warrant for a stopped vehicle. Shoot, they don't even have to get a warrant if they impound the thing...but, this discussion has shaken my confidence somewhat lol.

kyle010723 · Post by **kyle010723** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:48 am

Arbinshire · Post by **Arbinshire** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:48 am

In any event, I'm burnt. I'm starting to feel like O'Neil after he lost all his alien memories. My head can't support all this law and is now returning to normal. In a few weeks time it'll all be gone and I'll possibly be a normal person again.

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:49 am

Veridian40 wrote:
Arbinshire wrote:
Veridian40 wrote:
Arbinshire wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:
Calicakes wrote:
somuchbooty wrote: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.
Not so sure. You have multiple defendants detained and the exigency is no longer in play, which was the entire rationale for the reduced requirements for automotive searches. You have the car. Its not going anywhere without your control. You have reasonable opportunity now to get a warrant. You don't need to hurry up and search as you've got everything needed. Tie the string on the case and get a warrant.
I work in criminal law, and I have never, ever heard of the police getting a warrant for a stopped vehicle. Shoot, they don't even have to get a warrant if they impound the thing...but, this discussion has shaken my confidence somewhat lol.

Don't let it. Some states have requirements that go beyond the federal constitution. I think some of the confusion may be coming from this.

odoylerulez · Post by **odoylerulez** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:49 am

spacecaps wrote:what about the law regarding ownership of a certain dangerous reptile? const'l?

Barely remember that one, but 90% chance the right answer was commerce clause or rational basis.

Because that's bar con law for you.

spacecaps · Post by **spacecaps** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:49 am

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:49 am

Arbinshire wrote:In any event, I'm burnt. I'm starting to feel like O'Neil after he lost all his alien memories. My head can't support all this law and is now returning to normal. In a few weeks time it'll all be gone and I'll possibly be a normal person again.

Stargate SG-1 reference. Awesome!

Arbinshire · Post by **Arbinshire** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:50 am

odoylerulez wrote:
spacecaps wrote:what about the law regarding ownership of a certain dangerous reptile? const'l?
Barely remember that one, but 90% chance the right answer was commerce clause or rational basis.

Because that's bar con law for you.

Gah... I remember something about a question like that pissing me off. For the life of me, I can't remember anything more than a damned lizard.

kyle010723 · Post by **kyle010723** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:50 am

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:51 am

I wish stargate could have stayed on showtime. Would have been interesting if that show could have kept the boobs from the pilot throughout the series!

olive16 · Post by **olive16** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:51 am

odoylerulez · Post by **odoylerulez** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:51 am

jaysnooginz · Post by **jaysnooginz** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:54 am

A car is always exigent, no matter that the police have control over the suspects. The supreme court does not and has not made such a distinction post Acevedo.

Veridian40 · Post by **Veridian40** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:54 am

victortsoi · Post by **victortsoi** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:56 am

MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

How did the MBE go, compared to your expectation?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Register for access!

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Register now!

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Re: MBE - how'd you feel?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?