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 - mutual_biscuit

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
i had two interviews and arent even a law review member.

but then i didnt get the offer either, so wtf do i know

Maybe it's because you use the word "aren't"?

Current Law Students / Re: Crim Pro Question.
« on: December 04, 2008, 04:33:49 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.

Current Law Students / Crim Pro Question.
« on: December 03, 2008, 01:18:44 PM »
Does finding contraband that is not within the scope of the original search expand the scope of the original search?

#A) Legitimate warrant to search a home for stolen coins. During searh, and in plain view, the police find evidence of bomb making. Has the scope of the original search been extended to areas that might contain bomb-making materials or would a warrant to search for this new contraband be required? I'm pretty sure that since it's a residence and since they already have control of the residence a new warrant would be required absent some emergency need to search.

#B) The police pull a car over for speeding and in the process they see a joint (marijuana cigarette) sitting in the ashtray. They arrest and search the interior of the car for further marijuana evidence and under the seat they find an expertly packaged kilo of cocaine under the seat. Does finding the kilo expand the search to the trunk and upholstery given the fact that he may be transporting drugs as opposed to a minor offender. Given the fact that it's an automobile I think the probable cause can expand the scope of the original search to the trunk and upholstery absent a warrant.

What do you think? 

Current Law Students / Evidence Checklist.
« on: November 20, 2008, 07:45:36 PM »
Anyone have a good source for an evidence checklist. Nothing too detailed, I just want a basic flowchart type thing that will help me put the rules some sort of logical order because, as of now, I've just got a bunch of f-ing rules with no order and everyone knows that rules don't mean anything without order because when there's no order there's anarchy and when there's anarchy there are no rules.

Here's the low-down on a real life problem that I (or nobody else) cant seem to find a solution for. This is a very brief overview and I must necessarily withhold many of the details. The firm I am interning for this summer represents a number of labor unions. One of the unions we represent (Sheet Metal Workers) is losing work because a competing union (Carpenters) is putting the work traditionally performed by sheet metal workers into their contracts with the general contractors on jobsites. The sheet metal workers have the same work assignments in their contracts, however, the sheet metal workers have their contract with subcontractors as opposed to the carpenters union who has a direct contract with the General Contractor. The Carpenters Union is doing the same thing to other trade unions and they basically have a right to do it because the carpenters are generally the first people on a jobsite and they get the contract with the GC. If the General Contractor or subcontractor assigns any of the work to the sheet metal workers the carpenters will leave the site or impose fines on the GC.

THEORY 1: Restraint of Trade/Antitrust - Traditionally this would probably amount to restraint of trade, however, the National Labor Relations Act grants labor unions immunity from antitrust actions so long as the action takes place in the context of a collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Carpenter's Union are free to contract whatever the hell they want so long as it's in the context of a collective bargaining agreement.

THEORY 2: Intentional Interference with Contract - Reverts back to the problem above. The carpenters union has a right to interfere with the contract so long as their interference is based on a "good faith" belief that they have a rightful claim to the work. Since it is in the context of a collective bargaining theory they do have a rightful claim to the work.

These are the two main theories I have explored and neither would be successful. Any thoughts or ideas on other legal theories that might be successful, keeping in mind that there is probably an labor exception for theories that might normally be successful in this situation.   

Current Law Students / Re: Law Review Write-on how hard?
« on: May 22, 2008, 01:48:41 PM »
Not so much hard as tedious. Certainly not fun.

If you're failing undergrad classes you probably don't quite have the mental maturity for law school. I'd take a year off and make sure you know what you're doing prior to throwing away all the $ and time that is law school.

Current Law Students / Re: Another Property Question From Me.
« on: May 12, 2008, 12:49:34 PM »
You're done with school and you're still sitting on this board during the afternoon? That's just sad.

Current Law Students / Re: Another Property Question From Me.
« on: May 12, 2008, 11:09:52 AM »
O did not breach any of the present covenants you ass. I have a pretty simple question and I can't find the answer (my textbook is at school). Does the general warranty covenant warrant against future conveyances of the property by the grantor. My guess is that it does not protect against this action just like the quiet enjoyment warranty does not warrant against this, but I'm not 100% sure . . . only 93% sure. 

Current Law Students / Re: Another Property Question From Me.
« on: May 12, 2008, 10:25:19 AM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 4