Bun and Done: Bar Exam Concepts from the Mouths of Chestnut, Kobayashi

In the world of competitive eating, few rivalries have garnered as much attention and excitement as the battle between Joey Chestnut and Takeru Kobayashi. Heck, there is even an ESPN “30 for 30” film titled "The Good, The Bad, The Hungry" about them.

These two titans of the table have not faced each other since 2009, after years of back-and-forth victories that thrilled audiences worldwide (at, at least, me). Kobayashi, a legend from Japan, dominated the famous Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest from 2001 to 2006, setting new records and transforming competitive eating into a global spectacle. However, American Joey Chestnut rose to challenge Kobayashi and eventually usurped the throne in a dramatic showdown that still resonates with fans.

Five years since their last face-to-face eat-down, Netflix last week announced a “wiener”-take-all throwdown.

The live hot dog eating contest, called "Chestnut vs. Kobayashi: Unfinished Beef," will take place Labor Day (so you’ll be able to watch it guilt-free while waiting for your bar results) and offers a front-row seat to what may be the final clash between these two competitive eating giants.

While hot dogs aren’t tested on the bar exam, the individual terms of “hot” and “dog” may appear on the bar exam.

So, let’s parse those two words—it’s a bun-believable way to relish the legal details.

🔥 “Hot” 🔥

Criminal Procedure—Warrantless searches: “Hot pursuit” is one of the exceptions to a warrantless search. Under this exception, police officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure. The scope of the search may be as broad as may be reasonably necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping. 

Torts—Defense of property: Defense of property is limited to preventing the commission of a tort against the defendant’s property. Thus, once the defendant has been permanently dispossessed of the property and the commission of the tort is complete, she may not use force to recapture it. However, where one is in “hot pursuit” of someone who wrongfully dispossessed her of her property, the defense still operates because the other is viewed as still in the process of committing the tort against the property.

Torts—Recapture of chattels: Where another’s possession began lawfully (e.g., a conditional sale), one may use only peaceful means to recover the chattel. Force may be used to recapture a chattel only when in “hot pursuit” of one who has obtained possession wrongfully, like by theft.

🐶 “Dog” 🐶

Criminal Law—Traffic stops: As long as police officers have lawfully stopped a car and don't extend the stop beyond the time necessary to issue a ticket and conduct ordinary inquiries incident to the stop, a dog sniff of the car doesn't implicate the Fourth Amendment. However, police officers may not extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, for the purpose of completing a dog sniff. The key question isn't whether the dog sniff occurs before the police issue the ticket, but rather whether the dog sniff adds time to the stop. Also, during a routine traffic stop, a dog “alert” to the presence of drugs can form the basis for probable cause to justify a search of the automobile. 

Evidence—Hearsay: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  The statement must be made by a person. There is no such thing as animal or machine hearsay. Therefore, the behavior of a drug-sniffing dog isn't hearsay. 

Torts—Defense of property: One may use reasonable force to defend property. However, she may not use force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Further, one may not use indirect deadly force—like a vicious dog—when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser.

Torts—Liability for domestic animals: Strict liability generally doesn’t apply to owners of domestic animals. But strict liability does apply if the owner knows that that particular animal’s dangerous characteristics are more dangerous than normal for that species. This rule applies even if the animal has never actually injured anyone. Some states have “dog bite” statutes—applicable only to dogs—which impose strict liability in personal injury actions even without prior knowledge of dangerous characteristics.