Enough to know that it's really disturbing when I find editorial notes like "Susan: Ed says answer B is too vague; fix in next edit" strewn about my computerized MBE review questions.
I'm still waiting to answer a question with something that will let me be like "Hey! I learned that in law school!"
But I don't think that will happen unless I get a question on allocative effiency, Texas Hold 'Em, or the BlueBook.
I was listening to 99 Problems last week while studying and tried to work through whether he was correct when he said "Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back and I know my rights so you gonna need a warrant for that." I think they can search the glove compartment, but not the trunk, without a warrant when it's incident to a lawful arrest. Right?
Fourth Amendment is killing me.
Posted by: Underground | July 17, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Only time you get to the trunk is with probable cause or a routine inventory.
I think you're right about the glove compartment.
Posted by: Bluechip | July 17, 2006 at 07:12 PM
I just want this to be over.
Now.
Posted by: Tbag | July 17, 2006 at 07:59 PM
I meant to post about that, and I think that Jay-Z is probably right. I don't think the "search of the passenger compartment" extends to the glove compartment if it's locked.
I was also thinking about how drug dealers shouldn't drive SUVs, as they have no trunk.
Good note topic, I think.
Posted by: wingsandvodka | July 17, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Under the 4th anything in the passenger compartment can come in, locked compartment or not. Same with closed containers. I think the cite California v. Acevedo. You need PC for the trunk. Technically inventory isn't a search so you follow the admin rules for an inspection.
Posted by: Antonio | July 18, 2006 at 04:08 PM
Bluebook on the bar? Brilliant idea, BWV! MBBE? MBBPT? Texas Bluebook Essay? I'm all for it. It has recently become painfully clear I learned little else over the past three years...
Posted by: | July 19, 2006 at 01:56 PM