Administrative Power and an Unconscionable Driver

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The case under analysis deals with the precedent which discovers a difficult case of relationships between a representative of administrative power and an unconscionable driver. In fact, when applying to concrete persons, officer Blakestone is a client. His attorney, Ahmed Al Atram, tries to put himself in the picture in order to better investigate the case for good and grave arguments which will be so vital and needful proximately during the trial process. So the details of the situation are as follows.

The case took place in the state of Indiana somewhere on the stage of road. A well-experienced officer (12 years in the department) with a good reputation and high-estimated characteristics from the workplace, meaning police department, being on patrol noticed a car speeding gradually and even swerving which signaled for the officer a strange thing of the straightforward infraction. Thus, Mr. Blakestone made some efforts so that to pull over the vehicle. The fact that the driver was drunk and violent in the way he behaved was fixed by the officer. Furthermore, the driver rejected all the requirements usually claimed by policemen in accordance with the procedure officially stated in the USA.

The driver had no desire to cooperate and follow the officer’s instructions desecrating him with four-letter words and unsuspected actions, namely hitting the officer while trying to escape. The officer used the taser attempting to hold the driver down to better control the situation because of physical differences between the two men. Also, the officer used his stun gun when another man continued resisting. Both men were unknown to each other. The driver had no license, the officer had no backup. The point is that the driver died after the officer’s use of a taser from a heart attack. That is the matter of aggravation.

The client, as it is seen, followed the instructions and used all the principles of maintaining legal affairs for administrative control and for safety on the roads. The extent of a cop is, frankly speaking, disdained in society, so many people do not mind the person of a cop until gaining trouble with the law due to their irresponsibility. The officer acted in the right way because the situation was not ordinary and eventual details of it intended him to act immediately. First, it concerned the legal language as for his work mandatory rules. Second, the case presented a danger for the rest of the drivers and accidental passers-by. Third, the direct hazard was manifested towards the officer because of the aggressive attitude of the driver. Nonetheless, the policeman was possibly the only person who could prevent the negative effects of such-like driving.

Taking into account possible claims from the side of the plaintiff may include the facts of assault made by the officer and his more than one attempt to shoot, first, with the help of a taser and then with the help of a stun gun. These were the measures of self-defense and considering the fact that the officer had no partner while patching up the dispute. The recorded tape can be presented as a potential and direct time-card alibi for the policeman. On the other hand, incriminating circumstances pinpointing against the driver are too weighty and grave regarding the statute of Indiana. Being under conditions of alcohol intoxication and, what is more, without a driver’s license and any wish to follow the officer’s instructions can be judged as too much evidence for the jury’s final verdict and for the judge to make out the official picture of the case.

Supporting the position of the officer there was known the fact that the plaintiff was several times seen in the pubs and had a strict habit of using alcohol, namely beer. Some of the witnesses being constantly in this pub saw him every single evening there. Also, the rolling by drivers stopped for a moment and one even helped to calm down the aggressive driver. Experts evaluated the injuries made by both sides and the traces of the rubber balls and the taser on the body of the driver which was targeted straight towards the torso of the offender. Moreover, the statute of Indiana directly states the following excerpt from the law: “A person who operates a vehicle in violation of any term of a probationary license issued under this chapter, IC 9-30-6, or IC 9-30-9 commits a Class C infraction.” (Indiana Code 5:6a) This fact of infraction provides a person with the negative verdict of the court when analyzing the probable dangers coming from the drunk driver. “In addition to any other penalty imposed under this section, the court may suspend the person’s driving privileges for a period of not more than one (1) year.” (Indiana Code 5:6b).

The official law of Indiana in this field of misdemeanor cases makes emphasis also on the fact that: “The bureau shall send notice of a judgment entered under this section to the court that granted the defendant probationary driving privileges.” (Indiana Code 5:6c) The facts that the plaintiff can strive to present his defense due to the cases of repeated shots by the officer are the weak points in the case. Another one is that the policeman did not follow the steps prescribed by the instructions when began speaking to the driver. The smell of alcohol indicated the risk coming from the plaintiff; this aspect can possibly explain the actions of the officer. Furthermore, expert reports came to a conclusion that the concentration of alcohol was eighteen-hundredths (0.15) gram per one hundred (100) milliliters of driver’s blood that is in excess of the permissible ultimate limit stated in the Code.

The potential defenses can touch upon the facts of strict and fast actions of the officer without claiming the rights for the plaintiff. Another point also considers the disability of the officer to work out the situation without falling back upon the taser and stun gun. This fact is clear enough du to the record and leaves some weaknesses for the positive decision of the court. The accused side can apply for the expertise data of the injuries which can seem to exceed the admissible quantity of shots to hold down the driver. Such claims are convincing and no one knows whose side the jury will take accompanied by the judge. What is more, the death of the driver is a direct aggravating circumstance to detect the probable guilt of the officer.

Analyzing further facts and details of the case it became clear that the officer did not handcuff the driver and stated the fact of his death due to the simultaneous coroner’s report. The Code of Indiana states special regulations in cases with wrongful death and personal injuries in Chapter 1, Section 2-3 where the statement of law estimates the situation with the officer’s case: “In a personal injury or wrongful death action, the court shall allow the admission into evidence of proof of the cost to the plaintiff or to members of the plaintiff’s family of collateral benefits received by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family.” (Indiana Code 1:2-3).

That is why the side of the client should find more arguments to maintain the positive outcome of the official court of Indiana not to be arraigned. The points of the officer which state no prior litigations and such like cases with the potential delinquent can present a strong alibi for the accused policeman. Now it should rather present the relieving outcome for him due to the all facts gathered and that there were enough witnesses.

Under the Constitution of the United States, the accused can present the jury with cross-claims pointing out the duty which required following the prompts from the very beginning until the end of the case which had the tragically outlined conclusion. The jury is the organ that should take into account all pros and cons of the case. That is why the death of the driver is an unavoidable fact which opens the way to a deeper investigation of all that the officer did and did not. If the jury makes a conclusion that the officer was wrong in his actions and was too severe showing the power and probably exceeding it towards the plaintiff side, then the infrastructure of police code and their requirements will be annulled, in fact.

The thing is that the optional and mandatory requirements of policemen are clearly written in the law base so that to determine the fields of their professional presence and the appropriate actions which are considered for straightforward reaction. In other words, the accused to custody should comprise in his case matter the entire argumentative base with the material evidence and the witnesses proving the position. Especially, stating the fact that the officer because of recession had a mid-range taser and attended the training courses in marksmanship, it is hard for the jury to drop a hint of doubt while appointing probable intentional shooting of the officer as well as his desire to make a lot of harm towards the plaintiff. However, the court cannot but make emphasis on the damages which were caused to the family of the plaintiff. First, it is the fact of personal moral loss. Second, it is a matter of insurance which should cover the merits

The settlement concerns according to the Indiana Code the compensatory help of the accused to the family of the plaintiff. In this case, the Code distinctively states that “proof of payments under section 2 of this chapter shall be considered by the trier of fact in arriving at the amount of any award and shall be considered by the court in reviewing awards that are alleged to be excessive.” (Indiana Code 1:3) The law of the state of Indiana differs actually less from the other states in this issue. It continues with the points of further court’s actions and decisions about the verdict of the jury and the result of the case:

In a personal injury or wrongful death action, the court shall allow the admission into evidence of:

(1) proof of collateral source payments other than:

(A) payments of life insurance or other death benefits;

(B) insurance benefits for which the plaintiff or members of the plaintiff’s family have paid for directly. (Indiana Code 1:2-1-A,B)

Thus, the facts from both sides in this pre-trial litigation are quite distinctive and measured in the argumentative aspects. The case of wrongful death and the fact of the previous intoxication and driving the vehicle without a driver’s license prove the position of the officer, but the death itself is the circumstance that leaves less good to be desired.

Works cited

Haydock, Roger S., Herr, David F., Stempel, Jeffrey W. Fundamentals of Pretrial Litigation 6^th Edition, West Group, 2007.

Indiana Code.

Click Here To Order Now!

Administrative Power and an Unconscionable Driver

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)