MBE - how'd you feel? Forum

[Arbinshire]

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!

Nah, I liked Stargate after showtime. It was intelligent without being gratuitous. It's subtlety made it for me. Its one of my all time favorite shows, to the point that whenever I write anything with the word, "Indeed", I amuse myself.

[jaysnooginz]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[spacecaps]

.

[Arbinshire]

.

[olive16]

.

[kyle010723]

EP or right to procreate.

[Arbinshire]

.

[kyle010723]

Also, I'm quite impressed some of you can cite all these case laws. I barely remember any cases from law school.

[Learned Throw Hands]

I can't even remember what the options were but thinking about it now seems like an EP problem.

[spacecaps]

EP or right to procreate.

what was the question generally about? i dont remember this

[Veridian40]

.

[Arbinshire]

Also, I'm quite impressed some of you can cite all these case laws. I barely remember any cases from law school.

I remember a few, chickens, humpty-dumpty or something, Old lady shooting off fireworks. Aside from that, meh.

[jaysnooginz]

Jacobson is not dated. It was affirmed in 1922 and has not been seriously challenged since. Are you saying that because Marbury v. Madison is 217 years old that it doesn't apply anymore?

[kyle010723]

EP or right to procreate.

what was the question generally about? i dont remember this

Sex offenders

[musicfor18]

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.

SILA does not require reasonable suspicion. It's an automatic right to search the person and the wingspan. No suspicion of any kind required.

[Arbinshire]

Jacobson is not dated. It was affirmed in 1922 and has not been seriously challenged since. Are you saying that because Marbury v. Madison is 217 years old that it doesn't apply anymore?

No, but I vaguely remember there being a privacy shift in the courts subsequent to that ruling. With no research though, I'm probably wrong. I would be shocked to find that one could be compelled to vaccinate as an adult in modern courts/views on privacy.

[musicfor18]

.

[spacecaps]

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.

SILA does not require reasonable suspicion. It's an automatic right to search the person and the wingspan. No suspicion of any kind required.

but the rules for SILA for a person are different than those for SILA when a car is involved

[musicfor18]

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.

SILA does not require reasonable suspicion. It's an automatic right to search the person and the wingspan. No suspicion of any kind required.

but the rules for SILA for a person are different than those for SILA for a car

They're not different in this respect. I think you're confusing Terry frisks with SILA. The only way that SILA of a person and SILA of a car is different is the rule that, once the arrestee is secured, you can't search the car unless you have reason to believe it contains evidence of the crime of arrest (or, of course, if you develop PC).

[Veridian40]

.

[jaysnooginz]

.

[kyle010723]

Jacobson is not dated. It was affirmed in 1922 and has not been seriously challenged since. Are you saying that because Marbury v. Madison is 217 years old that it doesn't apply anymore?

No, but I vaguely remember there being a privacy shift in the courts subsequent to that ruling. With no research though, I'm probably wrong. I would be shocked to find that one could be compelled to vaccinate as an adult in modern courts/views on privacy.

Well, and Cruzan was like 60 years later. The "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment" came after upholding compulsory vaccination. It's honestly something of an open question, what with Jenny McCarthy and the like...

Like I said, extremely difficult question, not one I think we should be sweating over.

I don't know how this group of people, knowing so much law and having intelligent debates about the law, can possibly fail the bar. It's just inconceivable.

[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.

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.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you: Maryland v. Dyson. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_1062. There doesn't have to be any exigency. Police can even search if they find the car with no one in it, as long as they have PC.

Interesting. Seems I'm just batting a thousand tonight. :\ Bodes well (or not). In the case of a car that is now under the control of the police, is it readily mobile? Assume we have defendants in the back seat, and the officer has control of the car - what now? At what point does an officer need a warrant. Consider a scale from a range from 1. Bag of Weed on dashboard, 5. Locked suitcase, finally to 10. Sealed and hidden compartment entirely hidden unless you cut the car up.

[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.

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.

I'm not saying that the search is invalid. I'm just saying the passenger has "standing" to challenge a search of, say, her purse that's inside the car. Rakas v. Illinois makes this clear. Interestingly, in Rakas (and later Rawlings v. Kentucky), the Court abandoned the concept of "standing" to challenge searches and seizures, saying that it's simply a substantive question of whether the challenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the item searched or seized. Thanks, BarBri, for using the "standing" terminology constantly.

[jaysnooginz]

An officer never needs a warrant for a car if he has probable cause to suspect contraband in it. Go read a case note on California v. Acevedo.