Moot Court Final Four competitors Wilbert Vancol (left), Olga Butkevich (below), Christa Diaz (right) and David Hughes (below) (supported by alternate Katie Watt) spent weeks preparing to argue before four federal judges, including federal District Judge Robert Hinkle, Senior District Judge William Terrell Hodges, District Judge Steven D. Merryday, and Senior District Judge John H. Moore II.

Coached and supported by fellow Moot Court members and faculty advisors, the final four were well-prepared to argue before the esteemed panel of judges.

“The team’s rigorous benching preparation plan had me feeling confident. Moreover, at breakfast, I spoke with Judge Hodges and he gave me some kind words to set me at ease. Professor Rambo also helped when she told me, as she tells all of her students, ‘to just bring it on,’” said Hughes.

“Once David went up to speak, I became extremely nervous. Nearly 10 seconds into my argument, the nervousness disappeared and survival mode kicked in,” added Butkevich. Hughes and Butkevich argued for the respondent with Hughes receiving the award for Best Overall Competitor.

The judges did not go lightly on the final four and asked some extremely tough questions. Vancol remarked, “Most of the questions I anticipated receiving, however, Judge Merryday's opening questions about whether a valid objection was placed did catch me off guard.” Vancol’s ability to think on his feet served him well and the judges awarded him Best Oralist. Together, Vancol and Diaz won the competition for the petitioner and received the award for Best Team. In addition, new moot court member Kate Woods received the Best Brief award.

The case was about the constitutionality of a warrantless search of a home after police had received the consent of one tenant while another co-tenant objected. As the judges repeatedly questioned, “why shouldn’t the court adopt a bright line rule holding such searches presumptively reasonable when, after all, co-tenants assume the risk of such searches when they voluntarily live with others.”

During the recess, UF Law Professor Teresa Rambo explained how bright line rules are often useful to lower courts tasked with following Supreme Court precedent because such rules produce predictable and consistent results in application. “But at what price to the parties’ rights?”she asked.

At the end of oral argument, the judges congratulated the final four on their impressive performance. “I felt honored. All four of us worked diligently, and it was rewarding that the judges thought so highly of our performance,” said Vancol.

“I remember seeing my family's faces as I walked into the auditorium and thinking, they're so proud of me for just being here,” recalled Diaz. To which Vancol added, “The one thing that I will never forget is the bond formed between the five finalists. As the process moved along, it stopped being adversarial and became completely collaborative. That's why, as proud as I was to be on the winning side, I was infinitely happier that everyone performed so well."