Jay-Z's 99 Legal Problems

I've always been a big fan of 99 Problems, but I'd never really given much thought to the car stop verse before today, when Jason posed a question about it. Now I ain't passed the bar, but I know a little bit, enough that I might help him get out of this shit. So, without further ado, a legal workover of 99 Problems (by line):

The year's '94, in the trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin' law
Well that's not good. Drugs in the back of the car. You're really asking for it. While I know its 94 in the song, I'm gonna do this using contemporary standards. It'll be easier that way.

I got two choices y'all pull over the car or
(hmmm)Bounce on the double put the pedal to the floor
Now I ain't tryin' to see no highway chase with Jay.
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
Well done, Jay. This is by far the most intelligent decision you could have made. If you continued to drive, not only would you be way more suspicious-looking (headlong flight is grounds for a stop-Illinois v. Wardlow), but the police could do pretty much anything short of killing you in trying to stop you and get away with it (Police causing a car crash in stopping fleeing criminal were not held liable for subsequent paralysis- Scott v. Harris) .

So I...pull over to the side of the road
I heard "Son do you know why I'm stoppin' you for?"
Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hats real low?
Do I look like a mind reader sir, I don't know
Now, if this is the case, you might have a chance to get out of this one. If the officer's sole justification for stopping you is your race, the stop is not justified. (St. Paul v. Uber). However, if race is only part of the calculus, and there might be some other reasons to stop you, then your racial discrimination claim is gonna fail. (United States v. Weaver).

Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo'?"
Well you was doin fifty-five in a fifty-fo' "
Uh-oh. It looks like you're in trouble now, Jay. If the officer has probable cause to believe you committed a breach of the traffic code, then he has all sorts of rights. Among these is the right to stop you, and search you. Even if you don't think that's what he's really stopping you for, the Court will look at whether a reasonable officer could have pulled you over for speeding, not the subjective intent of your particular arresting officer (Whren v. United States).

"License and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin' a weapon on you I know a lot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of shit all my paper's legit
Well, first off, you've gotta give them your license and ID. During an investigative stop, which includes what they're doing here, you have to give them your license if they ask for it, or they will have cause to search you and possibly arrest you (Hiibel v Nevada). Secondly, they can probably check you for a weapon. Traffic stops, by their very nature, involve a danger to the officer (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). Therefore, under Terry v. Ohio, the officer is justified in patting you down to make sure you're not armed. Third, you have to get out of the car. Under Mimms, in order to protect officers, a suspect can be ordered to get out of the car. So, out you go...

"Well, do you mind if I look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so are the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that.
Well, at least he's asking. If you don't give your consent, he might not be able to search. However, if he's got probable cause that you're doing something wrong beyond speeding (just speeding itself isn't gonna be enough to justify a search of the car subsequent to a traffic stop- Knowles v. Iowa). The fact that the glove compartment and trunk are locked might be useful to you, in case he does decide to arrest you. The fact that you can't get to them means that they are not in your grab area, and therefore would not be able to be searched without a warrant (New York v. Belton). However, this is made problematic by the fact that you're in a car. Since cars are movable instrumentalities, the police will not need a warrant to search the car, as long as they are arresting you. (Carroll v. United States).

"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?
"Nah, I ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit
"We'll see how smart you are when the K9 come."
Looks like you might get away on this count. If the police officer had the dog on him, he'd be able to use it to sniff the car, as you have no right to possess contraband. (Illinois v. Caballes). However, if the police can't justify your continued detention until the dog shows up, anything the dog uncovers will be suppressed. (Caballes).

"I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one."

May all your hits be crits,
B

Spann's Band

Normally, I don't double post so quickly, but I felt the need to go into this. Spann says that he's a rock band (I assume that makes him like Bright Eyes, one man calling himself a band). Now what would the name of the band be?

Random ideas:
Specific Performance (Classic-style rock)
Good Faith (Christian Rock)
Doctrinal Ambiguity (from Amanda)
Death of Equity (for his death-metal band)
Officially Sad (Emo?)
Johnny Guitar and the Prexisting Duty
Parole Evidence (Punk)

Any other ideas?

May all your hits be crits,
B

Whence Salvation?

So, Marie and I were coming back from dinner last night, and got off the Metro at Gallery Place/Chinatown. On the streetcorner across from us, there was a man with a megaphone yelling about Jesus. Now, this is not usually problematic for me. I occasionally enjoy being yelled at about Jesus, like the woman who would stand outside the stairs for the 4/5 train at Grand Central and yell, nearly year-round, about Jesus.

However, there was something weird about this guy, but I couldn't figure out exactly what it was for a second. Listening closer in, his speech turned out to not have much substance. It went something like this: "Jesus! Choo-choo-choo-ha-ha-ha." I thought there was no way that I actually heard what I thought I heard, so I stopped for another round. Sure enough, "Jesus! Choo-choo-choo-ha-ha-ha." Now, because it's difficult to convey exactly what this sounds like, this guy was making the same noise that is played in Friday the 13th right before Jason offs someone. When I hear this noise, my first instinct would be to move in the other direction, not to spend time around this guy to hear the rest of his speech.

I guess Jesus and Jason, while not particularly alike, have at least a few similarities:
Both rose from the dead, yet neither is a zombie.
Jesus died for our sins, Jason died because of our sins.
Neither is a huge fan of premarital sex (though Jason is the only one who will kill you for it).
Jason has spawned a wealth of sequals; Jesus has an entire New Testament (and the Book of Mormon)

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there will be more. Ideas?

May all your hits be crits,
B

Acting in Good Faith

So this morning, my Contracts class tackled the subject of good faith in bargaining. What we learned was that there is an implicit provision in every contract stating that the parties need to act in good faith towards one another. This provision, in many cases, cannot even be bargained away. My professor seemed relatively ok with this, reasoning that no party would ever want to ensure that both parties could act in bad faith. My first thought, once on break and able to really consider it, was "What if this is a contract to join the Evil League of Evil?"

Firstly, I would imagine that your goal in joining the Evil League of Evil is to find a place where you could act in bad faith with a lot of other people acting in bad faith. I mean, if you're going to circumcise the tip of the Washington Monument, you can't very well do it with any feelings of good faith. Secondly, since you are joining a League for the purpose of doing evil, I think that acting in good faith is a breach of contract, and grounds for both your expulsion from the League and a potential lawsuit. Therefore, I would imagine that a provision requiring you to act in bad faith would be implicit in your League acceptance contract, and a good faith provision would be nothing less than an act of treason.

While discussing this with JD, he pointed out that there would be a good faith requirement not towards the world at large, but towards your fellow members of the League. This would be an "honor among thieves" provision; you can act in bad faith towards anyone else, but members of the League are off limits. However, I believe that true evil lies in being willing to backstab even your closest allies. That's what sets apart the rank-and-file members from the Bad Horses of the world. Therefore, I believe that even your league allies should implicitly understand a bad faith clause upon joining the league.