OK Bar Multistate Bar 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A police officer stops a car for speeding and smells marijuana coming from the passenger compartment. The officer searches the trunk and finds cocaine. Was the trunk search valid?
- Yes, under the automobile exception, because there was probable cause to search the vehicle (Correct answer)
- No, because a warrant is always required to search a trunk
- No, because the smell of marijuana only justifies searching the passenger compartment
- Yes, but only if the driver consented
Correct answer: Yes, under the automobile exception, because there was probable cause to search the vehicle
Under the automobile exception, probable cause allows a warrantless search of any part of the vehicle where the contraband could be found, including the trunk.
Question 2: An owner conveys land "to A for life, then to B if B survives A." What interest does B have during A's lifetime?
- A contingent remainder (Correct answer)
- A vested remainder
- An executory interest
- A reversion
Correct answer: A contingent remainder
B's remainder is contingent because it is subject to the condition precedent of surviving A.
Question 3: At trial, a witness testifies that she saw the defendant's car speeding. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks about her prior statement to police that the car was 'moving slowly.' The prior statement was not made under oath. For what purpose is it admissible?
- Impeachment only, as a prior inconsistent statement not made under oath (Correct answer)
- Substantive evidence and impeachment
- Neither purpose, because it is hearsay
- Substantive evidence only
Correct answer: Impeachment only, as a prior inconsistent statement not made under oath
A prior inconsistent statement not made under oath at a proceeding is admissible only to impeach, not as substantive evidence under FRE 801(d)(1)(A).
Question 4: A homeowner hires a contractor to build a deck for $10,000. After the contractor completes 80% of the work, the homeowner repudiates without cause. The contractor's cost to complete would have been $1,000. What can the contractor recover in expectation damages?
- $10,000 minus $1,000 saved, or $9,000, less any progress payments received (Correct answer)
- $10,000 regardless of costs saved
- Only restitution for the value of work done
- Nothing, because the deck was not completed
Correct answer: $10,000 minus $1,000 saved, or $9,000, less any progress payments received
Expectation damages put the contractor where full performance would have, meaning the contract price less costs avoided by the breach.
Question 5: Congress passes a law requiring state legislatures to enact specific gun-registration statutes. A state challenges the law. What is the strongest constitutional objection?
- The anti-commandeering doctrine bars Congress from compelling states to legislate (Correct answer)
- The law violates the Second Amendment automatically
- Congress lacks any power over firearms
- The law violates the Contracts Clause
Correct answer: The anti-commandeering doctrine bars Congress from compelling states to legislate
Under New York v. United States and Printz, the Tenth Amendment forbids Congress from commandeering state legislatures or officers.
Question 6: A store owner sees a customer slip a watch into his pocket and walk toward the exit. The owner detains the customer in the back office for 20 minutes to investigate. The watch is found and the customer sues for false imprisonment. What is the owner's best defense?
- The shopkeeper's privilege permits reasonable detention on reasonable suspicion of theft (Correct answer)
- Consent is implied by entering the store
- There was no confinement because the office door was unlocked
- Truth is a complete defense to false imprisonment
Correct answer: The shopkeeper's privilege permits reasonable detention on reasonable suspicion of theft
The shopkeeper's privilege allows a merchant to detain a suspected shoplifter in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time to investigate.
Question 7: Two defendants agree to rob a bank. Before the robbery occurs, one defendant calls the police and reveals the entire plan. In a jurisdiction following the common law, is the withdrawing defendant still guilty of conspiracy?
- Yes, because the conspiracy was complete upon the agreement (Correct answer)
- No, because withdrawal negates the agreement
- No, because notifying police is a complete defense to conspiracy
- Yes, but only if the robbery is actually carried out
Correct answer: Yes, because the conspiracy was complete upon the agreement
At common law, conspiracy is complete at the moment of agreement, so later withdrawal does not erase conspiracy liability, though it may cut off liability for co-conspirators' future crimes.
OK Bar Multistate Bar 3
A police officer stops a car for speeding and smells marijuana coming from the passenger compartment.
The officer searches the trunk and finds cocaine.
Was the trunk search valid?