The Importance for the Authorities to Follow the Rules - Research Paper Example

Research Paper Problem Scenario Table of Contents Introduction 4 Discussion 5 Summary of Facts 5 Issues Presented 5 Arguments Presented by Each Side6 Applicable Law 7 Recommendation 8 Reasons 9 Core Values 10 Conclusion 10 References 11 Abstract The research paper explores the facts and legal issues related to a case scenario involving Officer Speedy of The Saint Leo Police Department. The paper intends to evaluate the legal aspects and regulations that the case has undergone. Correspondingly, it is found that due to the breach of certain required conducts a misdemeanor had occurred from the part of Officer Speedy as an Innocent pedestrian and a speeding sports car driver died during the course of hot pursuit which the department of Officer Speedy did not permit as a policy. In this regard, it is observed that both the families of pedestrian and sports car driver have threatened to sue Officer Speedy which has brought about a need for certain arguments to be presented to the Sheriff for and against whether she should be disciplined or not. Introduction Criminal Justice Administration is of relevance for the decision maker as it offers a foundation to assist in delivering balanced and effective administration replies in relation to the legal issues (San Diego State University, 2007). With regard to the provided scenario, one of the officers of the Saint Leo Police Department, Speedy was patrolling in the midnight in her cruiser to ensure the safety of the people. When suddenly, a sports car which was black in color came at a rapid speed from the corner and nearly hit the cruiser of Officer Speedy. In order to get hold of the sports car driver, the officer chased the car in the streets of Saint Leo at the mid night. All the bars of that area were on the verge to get closed and hence there were a number of people in that locality. Officer Speedy was chasing the black sports car at a high speed which was more than 100mph through the downtown Saint Leo area. Due to the high speed and the presence of a number of people in the area, the officer lost her control and unintentionally killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk with her cruiser. This created a chaos situation in the downtown Saint Leo. In order to see what has happened with the officer with the cruiser, the black sports car driver drove into a telephone pole and lost his life. Subsequently, the scenario is such that the families of the pedestrian along with the sports car driver are intimidating to sue the Sheriff as well as the city of Saint Leo. The case has been handed over to the Special Assistant to the Saint Leo Chief of Police, in order to get good judgement by analysing the legal issues and the facts. Discussion Summary of Facts Reckless driving is one of major criminal offences as per the US law. Reckless driving as per the case was done by both the officer and the sports car driver. It is evidential that the officer was chasing the sports car driver at a speed above 100mph and thus the car driver was also driving at a high speed. In accordance with the speed limit law of Florida, it is reflected that the statutory speed limit in the highway is a maximum of 70 mph and in other areas the speed should not be more than 55 mph for the safety of the people. Violation of the speed limit law results in fines and at times even leads to imprisonment if a person is killed or property is damaged to a considerable extent. Moreover, another apparent fact is that the Saint Leo Police Department does not have the policy of “Hot Pursuit.” Despite knowing this fact related to hot pursuit policy, Officer Speedy did not abide by the rule and chased the sports car driver at high speed. This was violation of the policy and the rule by the officer-in-charge. Another fact that has emerged is that the roads were not empty and were crowded with people returning from bars despite the time being midnight when the incident took place. Thus, it can be ascertained that it was important to drive the cruiser by Officer Speedy within the speed limit for the safety of others. Issues Presented The issues in relation to the presented case are that the legal rules and policies were not adhered by both the patrolling officer and also the sports car driver. In the first point, the sports car driver can be termed to be guilty and therefore penalty could be charged for his reckless driving. It was he who prompted Officer Speedy to chase him as he was driving at a high speed and was also on the verge of hitting the cruiser, which incidentally prompted the hot pursuit. Another aspect that could be highlighted against the sports car driver as a legal charge is that he did not stop even after he was almost going to hit the patrolling car of Officer Speedy to apologize. On the other hand, the key issue that has emerged against Officer Speedy is that she violated the traffic rule in order to chase the sports car driver. Moreover, as police department did not have a policy for hot pursuit, thus chasing the sports car at such a high speed was beyond the allowable duty rights of Officer Speedy. Besides, it can also be acknowledged that being the patrolling officer-in-charge Officer Speedy should have been aware of the fact that there must be people coming out of the bars at midnight and it was her duty to respect the life of these people by taking due care while chasing the culprit. Putting the lives of a number of people at stake in order to chase the sports driver was injudicious that too at a speed above 100mph. Arguments Presented by Each Side According to the case scenario, there are a total of three sides, one, of the concerned officer and two of the victims. The two victims are the pedestrian and the sports car driver. With regard to the case, it is stated that the sports car driver’s family is threatening the Sheriff and the city of Saint Leo to sue them because of the death of the sports car driver. The family wants justice from the administration as they believe that the death was caused due to the negligence of the officer and his unlawful acts. In this context, it can be argued that the sports car driver as per the State Speed Limit laws was not abiding by them while driving his car, which led this whole incidence to occur. Moreover, when the driver was on the verge of smashing into the cruiser of Officer Speedy he could have stopped and not ran from the place of incident. It is true that the officers are liable to safeguard the life of the people by abiding by the law. Officer Speedy is to some extent liable for her action as she did not follow the policy of chasing implemented by the department and did not consider the fact that the area she is patrolling has several bars and the people were out in the streets. Consequently, Tort of Negligence can be presented as a valid legal regulation for the officer as she was unable to take a reasonable decision in this case as per the situation (Jurisdictionary, n.d.). On the other hand, the reckless driving by officer was an act which was provoked by the driver of the sports car. The officer was doing her duty and due to such misconduct by the driver the officer chased the car. The pedestrian’s family’s argument lies in the fact that the death was caused due to the mistake of the officer and not due to the fault of the pedestrian. The threatening to sue the Sheriff and the city of Saint Leo is justified as the pedestrian had no fault as per the law. Applicable Law The primary law which is applicable in the case scenario is the tort of negligence law. The criminal act which has taken place in the case is due to the result of negligence. The act by Officer Speedy was due to the negligence and not as an act of crime (Kritchevsky, 2010). However, the legal law referred to in the case is tort law of negligence which made the officer to drive her cruiser at a speed above 100mph. As per the regulation of the traffic law in respect of negligence, it was observed that the speed of the vehicle should be at the maximum 70mph in the highway and for the other roads the maximum speed limit should be55mph (Florida Department of Transportation, 2010). This law was not abided by the officer as she was chasing a driver who was driving in a reckless manner. Hence, the driver of the car and the officer could be deemed as guilty on the ground of “Reckless Driving Speeding” (US Department of Transportation, 2006). In this case, the ‘Duty of Care’ obligation can also be applicable on Officer Speedy of the Saint Leo Police Department. ‘Duty of Care’ is the obligation of an individual to reasonably act in a manner which avoids the injury or loss for others. In keeping with the obligation, every individual must adhere to a specific standard while conducting their duties or acts so that the other individuals do not get negatively impacted due to their misconduct. Contextually, in this particular case the approach of the officer can be seen as inappropriate and violating the law of duty of care (Raniolo & Ellison, n.d.). Therefore, this law can be applicable in this case scenario. With regard to the case the duty of care was not met as per the regulation because of the negligence and a lack of commitment towards the duty on the part of the officer which led to the loss of life of the pedestrian. Regarding the aspect of negligence, a similar kind of scenario occurred in Blake v Galloway [2004] CA case wherein the incident was about high extent of recklessness along with carelessness. The plaintiff had to bear the blow of a missile due to the course of a game which informal in nature named horseplay, wherein the duty of care was breached1. Another case in respect of the duty of care and negligence can be reflected from Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) case2. The case highlights the importance of maintaining required standard for reasonable care in relation to negligence case. Recommendation With regard to the case scenario, both the parties threatened the Sheriff and the City of Saint Leo to sue them on the basis of the casualties caused by the actions of Officer Speedy belonging to the police department of Saint Leo. However, certain recommendation can be made to the Sheriff on the basis of the legal facts that have been presented earlier. Notably, the officer is deemed to be guilty of violating the law of tort of negligence with her conduct (Owen, 2007). Her approach was also seemed to be violating the speed limit law and the duty of care obligations which further make her liable to deal with certain legal procedures. Based on these grounds she can be disciplined. In this regard, the charges brought forward by the sports car driver’s family should not be entertained as the driver was the one who violated the law by breaking the speed limit and negligence which consequently led to his death. Thus, the officer cannot be held entirely responsible. On the other hand, the pedestrian’s family should be supported and their claim could be entertained as the death of the pedestrian was caused due to a lack of duty of care obligation and moreover the scenario can be related with tort of negligence as well. Even though the policy of hot pursuit was known by the officer, she did not abide by the law and hence it led to the death of the pedestrian. Accordingly, in this regard the officer can be held responsible for her action which as unlawful. Reasons The recommendation made to the Sheriff regarding officer and the claims of the families of both the pedestrian and sports car driver are supported by a few legal regulations and laws. In case of the claim from the pedestrian’s family the officer is recommended as guilty as she was not able to adhere to the duty of care obligation which states that the actions of a person should be authentic and should not harm any person or property. Responsively, the officer was not able to meet her duty as she lost her control and was driving the cruiser at a high speed which led to death of the pedestrian without any fault. The validity of this proposition can be derived upon the fact that the ‘speed limit law’ restricts the speed of vehicles travelling on other roads expect highways to 55mph. This rule was not abided by the officer and hence the charges related to tort of negligence as well as duty of care are both applicable. Based on these legal grounds the recommendations are made. Conversely, the reason for the recommendation in case of sports car driver was that the regulation regarding the speed limit was not upheld by the driver. Furthermore, the driver was just on the verge of hitting the cruiser of the officer due to the negligence. Moreover, the driver did not follow the traffic rules and hence the officer had to chase him in the busy street of Saint Leo at midnight. Core Values According to the Saint Leo University, the core values include value excellence, community, responsibility and also integrity. As per the recommendations, the core values which are implicated in the argument for the case scenario have these propositions. Responsibility is one core value which was not followed by the officer while conducting her duty as well as the sports care drive while speeding through the road at midnight. Contextually, the officer herself broke the traffic regulations and speed limit in order to chase one sports car driver. Her action was not responsible as she put the lives of the people at risk by her activities. Safeguarding the environment and the community is the responsibility of a police patrolling officer. The value community was not addressed responsibly by the arguments presented by the officer as one innocent pedestrian belonging to the community of Saint Leo had to lose his/her life. Also, the core value regarding integrity was also not addressed in a correct manner by the officer in this case (Saint Leo University, 2013). Conclusion The case reflects the fact that it is of importance for the authorities to be more responsible and to follow the rules. The deaths in this case faced by Officer Speedy were a result of misconduct and carelessness of the officer and the driver. Furthermore, the action of the officer should have been more responsible and lawful so that the driver could have been punished and the life of the pedestrian could have been saved. Thus, it can be stated that it is important to abide by the laws and any misconduct against the rules can lead to un-called for incidents. References Federation Press. (n.d.) Blake v Galloway. Chapter 11, 1-4. Florida Department of Transportation. (2010). Speed zoning. Florida, 1-49. Jurisdictionary. (n.d.). Negligence. Samples, 1-2. Kritchevsky, B. (2010). Tort law is state law: why courts should distinguish state and federal law in negligence-per-se law. American University Law Review, 60(1), 72-130. Owen, D.G. (2007). The five elements of negligence. Hofstra Law Review, 35(4), 1671-1686. Oxford. (n.d.). Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957). Resources, 1-10. Raniolo, R. & Ellison, M. (n.d.). Duty of care. Policies, 1-6. San Diego State University. (2007). Criminal justice administration. General Catalog, 1-2. Saint Leo University. (2013). Student’s rights and responsibilities. Media, 1-34. US Department of Transportation. (2006). Summary of state speed laws. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1-292. Read More