library shenanigans and PMBR errors abound

The highlight of my day today was that I had to tell a couple of undergrads to pipe down since a row of us were studying. They were cool about it. I suppose this balances out the time one of my friends and I were shushed by someone else who was probably studying for the bar. Except that the loud "shush" is merely passive aggressive nonsense that accomplishes very little except pissing off the shush-ees. Although I'm not surprised anymore that law students are pretty passive aggressive, I am a bit surprised that more don't simply try and solve their problems by talking first. Maybe that's indicative of the type of practice they will be getting into. I'm not of that sort and figured it would be more productive to just ask nicely to shut up.

I also have some major beef with a couple of these PMBR questions, particularly since I saw a nearly identical question in the Barbri book and the answers conflicted. Barbri's answers seemed much more reasoned and correct, so I will say that they trumped. Thus, if a police officer has a valid warrant, he can arrest you, so long as he was acting in good faith in executing the warrant. Seems like good 4th amendment sense, and it makes much more sense than PMBR's answer which seemed to say that you could win a false imprisonment suit against the police if the basis for their warrant was a false report that was never recanted. (This is the gist of Torts question #92 in the red book for those of you following along at home. PMBR's answer makes no sense constitutionally, and thus is patently wrong).

Perhaps if PMBR gave some logical reason for their explanation so that us bar studiers could actually learn the law of the particular question, I could see their point. But they don't, and usually don't, and their case law suggestions are completely pointless, so I stand by my continued assertion that PMBR questions are what they are - good enough, but not great by any means.

Tags: pmbr, barbri, pmbr questions, bar review, pmbr questions wrong