The title is, of course, referring to the Bar Examiners, who today let me know that I apparently am of good character. My parents will be proud. (And confused.)
Barely got over 50% on the Advanced Crimes MBEs I've done so far. I'm now starting to get pissy with the discrepancies between BarBri and the PMBR tapes. For example - If a police officer goes to your house, and a person answers the door, can that person consent to a search? PMBR says that the police have to reasonably believe that the person has ownership or control, and can't just assume it by the fact that they open up the door - basically, that they need to ask: do you live here? BarBri says they just need a reasonable belief - so in the above case, the fact that the person opened the door, said that the person they were looking for was away for a bit, and consented to the search, was enough to give the officer the reasonable belief.
Granted - in both cases the issue is reasonable belief. I get that. But PMBR makes a point of saying reasonable belief requires something more than BarBri seems to imply with their question. (Advanced #30 by-the-way.)
SO.... this leads me to a two questions - 1) Who do I go with? 2) Is this sort of fine distinction going to be on the bar in the first place?
Given my shitty performance I'm going to give up for the day. At least for a few hours, at which point I may bust open the PMBR books I got in the mail today. Sounds like the makings of an awesome Saturday night... try not to be jealous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment