Week Fourteen, Part 4 - I Forget, Therefore I Am

Since three of the four finals – CivPro, Crim, Torts – are closed book, I know there’s a mountain of memory work ahead of me. Even on fact-pattern exams, the testing style that made law school famous, the student must state the black-letter law and how it applies to the issues at hand.

So, on my way across the South Quad to the parking lot, I study flash cards. My goal is to memorize the Crim Pro questions-and-answers – 131 of them – I wrote up over fall break. They’re all basic doctrine.

I remember a statement about Notre Dame by Regis Philbin, an alum. “You walk on this campus and you breathe it in. It gets into your heart, your mind. It stays with you forever.”

Ha! The only ideal I’m “breathing in” is Question #64. “What's the ‘apparent authority’ doctrine (Illinois v. Rodriguez)?”

I read the answer out loud three times. “Police may enter private premises without a warrant if they are acting in reliance on a third party's consent whom they reasonably believe has common authority over the premises.”

Concentrate. Concentrate. Please, I think, “Stay with me forever.”

I commit each phrase to memory.

• Police.
• Private premises.
• Without a warrant.
• Reliance.
• Third party’s consent.
• Reasonably believe.
• Common authority over the premises.
  

I see areas that could be tested in fact pattern. Is a piece of land actually “private premises”? Did the statement by a third party rise to the level of “consent”? Was there “common authority”?

I feel like I understand this holding.

“Telloyan owns the case law,” I imagine my classmates saying. “Very impressive. He reads a definition and it stays with him forever.”

I move on to Question #65. “What are the 2 keys to the ‘apparent authority’ doctrine? 1 - The belief must be reasonable; if the ‘consenter’ claims to have authority to consent to a search but there are circumstances suggesting that he really doesn't, the police can't conduct the warrantless search. 2 - It doesn't matter if the police make a mistake in that the consenter doesn't actually have authority; all that's necessary is that the police reasonably believe he does.”

On the drive home I listen to WestLaw review tape on Contracts. Soon I’m absorbed in Article 2 of Uniform Commercial Code. I comfort myself with the thought that the test is open book.

Before long I turn onto Edinburgh Drive and then into our garage. I pull out my flashcards and once again quiz myself: Question #64: “What's the ‘apparent authority’ doctrine (Illinois v. Rodriguez)?”

I draw a complete blank. The answer hasn’t even stayed with me for twenty minutes!

I slam the car door and stomp inside.

Terri asks what’s wrong.

“Finals are three weeks away! I’m a meathead! Cognitive decline begins at age thirty!!” Blah, blah, blah.

Terri walks to the bedroom and comes out with a white t-shirt in her hand. “You’re not going to acquit are you?”

“What?” I growl.

Terri smiles and holds up the shirt. On the front in maroon letters is “The Layman’s Glossary of Legal Terms.” Underneath it are off-the-wall definitions:

• acquit - to wimp out
• arraign - stormy weather
• attorney - major sporting event
• bar association - drinking buddies
• bona fide - dog treat
• case law - Mexican coleslaw
• corpus delicti - rib capital of Texas
• court of appeals - justice for bananas
• crime of passion - sloppy kisses
• debtor - less alive
• deceit - a place to sit down
• discovery - cable TV channel
• evidence - denture cleaner
• extradition - more math homework

She points to the top one. “You’re not going to wimp out are you?”

I laugh. “No, I won’t. I plan to acquit myself well, thank you very much.”

Terri tosses me the shirt and I hold it to my face, inhaling the terms.

* * *