Lawyered!: Plain view doctrine and White Collar

This series will cover topics involving the law, law school and everything in between told from the perspective of a frightened, enlightened, irritated, and engaged law student. :)

It has been a time-tested, experienced-based rule of the universe that whenever you keep doing something for a long time--say, two years--chances are you're going to get bored. Two things I've been doing for almost two years are: blogging and being in law school.

To counter the effects of the rule, I blog about the law and try to equate, parallel or analogize it with something I love, and write under the title: Lawyered!. Example: Right to travel and Lily of How I Met Your Mother, etc.

Recently, I've blogged less Lawyered! stuff and busied myself with reviews of TV serieses to find a replacement for Chuck, which has aired its final series-ending episode last January 27. So to dovetail Lawyered! and Quest for the Next Best Series, here I am, writing about White Collar and search warrants.

The thing that impresses me most about my Criminal Procedure professor is his passion for the law. It is shown through his superb lecturing and teaching skills and knowledge of the law. In class, we are amazed at how much he knows about CrimPro (he knows the cases by heart and can recite them, unlike some of the profs I've had before, haha) and how dedicated he is to learning more about it. He updates his knowlegde by reading on new cases and sharing new-learned info to us.

Anyway, we've been discussing search warrants for about two or three weeks now. In the US, search warrants are governed by Supreme Court decisions in Katz vs. United States, Terry vs. Ohio,  State vs. Von Bulow etc. The general rule is: A search without warrant is illegal. But there are exceptions. One is the plain view doctrine as explained in Harris vs. United States (1968), Coolidge vs. New Hampshire (1971) and Arizona vs. Hicks (1987), as shown in the pilot episode of White Collar.

For the plain view doctine to apply, the following requisites must be present: (1) Lawful intrusion of the person/s doing the search into the private property being searched; (2) Inadvertent discovery of the items seized; and (3) Object seized is/appears to be a contraband or is evidence.

From 52:00 to the 54:56 mark of the White Collar Pilot episode, it is shown how a pursuit of a fugitive can justify the search of private property and seizure of obviously illegal items. The Dutchman, an art restorator suspected of forgering 1944 bonds, is caught at his warehouse printing tons of fake bonds when FBI agents barged in the said warehouse where a known fugitive named Neal Caffrey, who has GPS attached to his ankle, was tracked at.

Tim DeKay as Special Agent Peter Burke

Based on the requisites, there is a justified application of the plain view doctrine. Lawful intrusion: The FBI agents were there to catch a fugitive. Inadvertent discovery: No other act was done by the person/s doing the search in order to find out that the materials/items were being used to commit a forgery. They came in and saw them in the act of printing and/or trying to hide the said items. Apparently contraband/evidence: Printing high-definition copies of a 1944 rare bond (although many was made, there is only one surviving copy) without authorization to do so is, rightly, a forgery and art theft in the US.

Honestly, I didn't see the search warrant part coming thirty minutes into the episode but I loved and appreciated the fact that it did fit perfectly into the story. I know this makes me sound conceited but I will say this: I liked the "Aha!" moment I had when the plain view doctrine was shown/mentioned. It makes me feel proud that I was able to find something law-related in an unexpected moment and understanding it. Goes to show how you go on to do one thing, and turn out finding/liking something else fascinating about it. Aside from providing a good illustration of the application of the doctrine, this certainly is a plus factor in White Collar's favor*.

Lawyered!

------------------------------------
*More on White Collar in a QNBS review coming soon.

You may want to read:


Lawyered: The Law-down
Lawyered: Do the Math
Lawyered: Top Reasons Why You Should Date a Law Student

Two-Second Moment

It amazes me how, at a very precise two-second moment, we are given the opportunity to connect with someone we don't know and have just seen. This moment happens randomly. Maybe you're walking at the mall, crossing the street, dining with friends, browsing books, holding hands with your partner... It happens when you least expect it. You look at each other amidst a crowd people, or in spite of the great distance between you. Then, you smile at same precise moment that you're looking at each other. The look may be romantic or platonic but the connection is unmistakable. Because you don't know each other, and the current circumstance you're both in limit your actions, you break eye contact, and turn away, as if nothing happened. You're afraid to look again. To see if that person is still looking.

You chalk up this moment as one of your life's greatest mysteries. Who is this person? Why is he/she looking at me? Why are we looking at each other? Why did he/she smile? What is he/she thinking?

You will never know. Unless fate, destiny or luck gives you both another chance, another circumstance to connect...connect in a manner that matters.

I thought these moments happen only in the movies, books or TV serieses. Apparently they do happen to ordinary people.

QNBS: Suits

As I wait for January 27 (the airing of Chuck's last two episodes), I feel time is running out on me. I have reviewed a lot of series, hoping to find a replacement for Chuck but so far none has come out as the clear winner. So I continue my Quest for the Next Best Series. Many series have been recommended but today, I will write about Suits.

Plot: A twenty-something college dropout decides to stop getting stoned and taking tests for other people, and be responsible on his own by becoming the 'protege' of a thirty-something brilliant lawyer.


PROS:

1. It was recommended by one of my friends whose taste in books, movies and music I find really good, or is highly similar to mine. Props to Vizzie for suggesting that I try Suits.

2. Mike Ross reminds me a lot of Chuck Bartowski. Twenty-something loser who was kicked out of college because of cheating and has nothing to show for or be proud of in his life. Although Mike is not as endearlingly clumsly or nerdy as Chuck is, he still has that "loser" charm going for him. If you love underdogs or rags-to-riches stories, I think it's safe to say that Mike has, to say the least, a little bit of underdog quality in him. Mike's photographic memory, intelligence and ability to retain tons of information can be paralleled to Chuck's nerdy-ness when it comes to video games and technology. And of course, like Chuck, I expect Mike to get the girl...no matter how long the series writers decide it to be.

Rachel: Take notes I'm not going to repeat myself.
Mike: I love you.

3. It's about law. Although I try not to do things related to law when I'm not studying, I'm surprised to find Suits really entertaining. I guess it's always okay to watch things you can relate to. Aside from Marshall from How I Met Your Mother and an occassional mention of issuance of warrants in Bones, Suits is the most law-related show I have watched so far.

4. The characters are interesting, and the actors playing them are very effective. Gabriel Macht as Harvey Specter  is perfect. Harvey is like a better-dressed, less condescending but highly cunning Gregory House. Patrick J. Adams is a very believable Mike Ross. Their chemistry is commendable--from the usual sarcastic senior lawyer-junior lawyer banter to the "Because you're afraid you have to admit you're not as smart as you think you are" moments.

Harvey (l) and Mike (r)

The supporting actors Rick Hoffman, Meghan Markle and Gina Torres are very strong in their portrayals of Louis Litt, Rachel Zane, and Jessica Pearson respectively. They provide the leads, and the show, the necessary back-up in case they fail to interest enough viewers. Sarah Rafferty as the strong-willed paralegal with her own office is H-O-T. She provides the necessary eye candy for the show. Hoffman as Louis is highly effective as that annoying villain/highly insecure other partner of the firm.

His face is really annoying. Perfect for a villain.

5. The first two episodes reveal enough detail about the characters for the viewers to get interested and yet they manage to make some stories open for clarification or exploration in succeeding episodes. Aside from the obvious Mike-Rachel relationship, I also expect to see the Harvey-Jessica dynamic expounded, albeit in a non-romantic manner (like, how they met, how Jessica helped Harvey etc), and I noticed how the writers laid down the foundation for a Mike-Trevor's girlfriend possible connection/conflict.

And of course, there's annoying Louis and the exploration of why he is how he is and the limit (or lack of limit) of the mean things he can do. I even found the secretary Donna Paulsen (played by Sarah Rafferty) promising.

CONS:

1. It sends the wrong impression  (to law students or would-be law students) that you can be brilliantly good at being a lawyer without having a law degree. Yes, it may be possible but, as a law student who's trying to find reason and drive to continue learning about the law with the hopes of being a good lawyer, the show does not set a good example. It makes one doubt the necessity of undergoing the rigors of law school.

Oh, photographic memory, law school would have been a lot easier if I had you.

2. It reinforces the popular sentiment that lawyers are liars--very good ones at that.

3. I wish it was funnier. Yes, Louis is funny but he is such in a very annoying manner.


I admit, at this point, Suits looks promising. I can see myself regularly watching it and being entertained by it. But the question is, will it continue to have the "stick-by-it" factor Chuck and The Big Bang Theory have and How I Met Your Mother is slowly losing? I hope so.


--------------------------------------------
You may want to check other QNBS reviews:

QNBS: Game of Thrones
QNBS: IT Crowd 
QNBS: Rizzoli & Isles
QNBS: Community
QNBS: Outsourced
QNBS: Awkward
QNBS: New Girl

On Joining Twitter-verse

I welcomed 2012 with optimism and well, a lot of invitations to join Twitter. My apprehensions with joining Twitter started with news about celebrities being misquoted and mis-appreciated because of their tweets. Secondly, I refused to Twitter for fear of not having enough followers. Hello, it's a social networking site that capitalizes on--if not highlights--one's ability to convince people to follow them. It's harder than Facebook because one is measured by 140-character thoughts, which have to be not too personal yet endearing, witty, interesting, funny or...well, something that will elicit enough reaction for you to get re-tweeted. Thirdly, I refuse to join Twitter because I can't think of a catchy Twitter name. How can I keep up with witty names out there in Twitter-verse? I wish my name was Simon, so my Twitter name could be: simonsays, and I'll appear like the most -ass person on the planet for using that name.

So today, I write about all the Twitter names I can use when I decide to join.

joannfdm - The most bland name I could think of. Might as well not join Twitter kung ito lang gagamitin ko.

joannfrances - I used this for my Multiply account. Can be used for purposes of parallelism, or continuity.

mamajo - My high school nickname. I didn't like it but it stuck, and everyone from my batch called me mamajo. 

maruyajunkie - I love maruya the same way a junkie loves/is attached to his drugs.

madtherung - My Game of Nerds username. 

romancandlesacrossthenight - Being a big On the Road fan, I can't help but consider an On The Road reference. I think the name's too long.

counterculture or iamcounterculture- One of my best, most appreciated moment in 2011 was when a law blockmate described me as "counterculture" and that I reminded her of Juno's "angst in a positive way". I loved being counterculture.

malcolmhaller - Since we're on the topic of law school might as well think of one. I admit malcolmhaller is kind of lame.

frankyfranks - My friends Jan and Pau will be too happy if I used this. 

sigangdominga - This will be fun to use if my close friend Alex will join Twitter as sigangsandejas.

jimdandy - It means, the best of its kind, and is the name of this blog. 

jack'ssmirkingrevenge - A reference to Fight Club although I doubt it if this username is not yet taken.

richalvarezfangirl - The name speaks for itself.

batanesmeetstandanes - This list wouldn't be complete if I didn't use something Jen Tuazon-inspired. 

ilovebenedictanderson - The name's very special. It stands for a lot of things I cherish but chose to forget. You may think you get what it means or what it refers to but believe me, you don't. I'm sure people will keep asking "who is benedict anderson?" or "why love him?" and I don't want to explain myself.

supersamplist - A cool name but highly inappropriate since I haven't used my supersampler in a looooong time. Also, once I use this, I am duty-bound to post a supersampler photo once in a while.

And there goes my list of possible Twitter names. Smart? Lame? I can do better? Tell me what you think.

QNBS: Game of Thrones

PROS:

Referred by the Chuck Bartowski

CONS:

None so far.

--------------------------

QNBS: Outsourced

QNBS: IT Crowd

QNBS: Rizzoli & Isles

QNBS: New Girl

QNBS: Community

QNBS: Awkward