Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - StudentUVA

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 273
1
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Two Years Later - Real Life Law Students
« on: October 03, 2009, 07:29:08 AM »
Student 9
Stats: 4.0/171
School: UVA
Grades: Top 5%
1L Summer: RA for a prof
2L: V5 Firm
Future Plans: court of appeals clerkship on the 9th Cir. Possibly district clerkship afterward. Will return to the V5 firm (has offer).

2
Law School Admissions / Re: Stanford (or Berkeley) vs. Columbia (Hamilton)
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:01:36 PM »
CLS is an easy choice here. BTW, as far as academia is concerned, I've heard that CLS places even better than Stanford (after talking to some profs who are in charge of hiring new faculty members). Take the money and run. Congrats.

^ Good example of how taking the money and running works out well.

Haha thanks.

OP: Yale vs. CLS with Hamilton is a tough one. Personally, I'd still take CLS, but Yale is definitely in a league of its own.

3
Law School Admissions / Re: Stanford (or Berkeley) vs. Columbia (Hamilton)
« on: February 05, 2009, 06:49:32 AM »
CLS is an easy choice here. BTW, as far as academia is concerned, I've heard that CLS places even better than Stanford (after talking to some profs who are in charge of hiring new faculty members). Take the money and run. Congrats.

4
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: CCN v Michigan v G'Town
« on: February 02, 2009, 03:08:47 PM »
In this economy, I'd try to save as much money as I can, without losing out on the job security too much. With your choices,I'd take Mich. The difference in employment stats is probably not worth the money difference. If you're smart enough to get a scholarship at Mich, you're likely to do well enough in your class, so you shouldn't be at the bottom of your class. If you have decent grades, I'm sure you'll get a great biglaw job from Mich. My own 2 cents on the issue.

5
Nobody cares, it's all a numbers game. So don't worry about your age. But I would advise you to improve your LSAT.

6
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Something to think about before you go to law school.
« on: January 28, 2009, 07:10:41 PM »
You make some good points, but 55 hrs a week seems way overboard to me. Even if you do a journal and a bunch of other extra curriculars you won't do so many hours (at least on average). I generally seem to study more than my peers and probably put in 40 productive hours a week.

7
Sounds like USC is giving you a good deal. No debt, SA position. What else could you want?

8
Current Law Students / Re: hardest first year class? vote here
« on: December 04, 2008, 06:03:19 PM »
I hated Crim.

9
Current Law Students / Re: Federal Courts v Commercial Paper
« on: December 04, 2008, 06:02:37 PM »
Fed courts tends to be infested with law review students.

10
Current Law Students / Re: Crim Pro Question.
« on: December 04, 2008, 05:59:34 PM »
Wow, I'm surprised with the attention this thing has received. Back to my initial question (hypo #2 with the car specifically).

First, I'm not sure that Acevedo solves the problem. My interpretation of Acevedo is that, where you have probable cause to search a container inside of a car, you have probable cause to search that area of the car:

In the case before us, the police had probable cause to believe that the paper bag in the automobile's trunk contained marijuana. That probable cause not allows a warrantless search of the bag. The facts in the record reveal that the police did not have probable cause to believe that contraband was hidden in any other part of the automobile and a search of the entire vehicle would have been without probable cause and unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment. - Acevedo

This does nothing to solve the problem of whether you can expand the scope of the search of the interior of a car to the trunk upon discovery of some new evidence.

It appears as though courts remain split on this issue. Wimberly v. Superior Court, 547 P.2d 417 (Cal.1976) says that the search of a trunk is illegal if you only have probable cause that the people are "occasional users rather than dealers." While U.S. v. Loucks, 806 F.2d 208 (10th Cir. 1986) says that such a distinction is illogical. Both of these are pre-Acevedo opinions, but neither has been undermined by Acevedo.

My guess is the issue remains undecided but, taking into account the favoritism  towards bright-line rules and the nature of the auto-exception, most court would side with the Loucks decision.

My interpretation  of Acevedo is that if you have a probable cause that a container has contraband in it then you can wait until that container is in a car, and then you can use the automobile exception to search the container in the car without a warrant. So you forgo the need to get a warrant to seize the container once the suspect puts it in the car. I'm not sure if it is pertinent here.

I agree with some of the previous posters who pointed out that the inquiry here hinges on whether the cops had probable cause to believe that the driver had more drugs in the car. If there was PC, then under the automobile exception the officer could search the trunk. If there was no PC, then the trunk cannot be searched even if the officer arrests the suspect. He'd need to get a warrant to search the trunk. Of course, I don't think there is a bright line rule here and you should just create arguments on both sides for whether there is a PC or not.

With regards to the first question, I don't think that the exigency argument is such a slam dunk argument here. Just because there is evidence of bomb making does not nec mean that there is an active bomb that may explode. I think you could argue that cops can prevent anyone from entering the apartment under McArthur until they get a warrant, and that would be sufficient. But absent some further details, it is not clear why there is an exigent circumstance (although argue both sides).

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 273