¶ … woman was arrested in 2010 for riding a non-motorized vehicle on an interstate highway as she was escaping flash food that had hit the state of Tennessee. At the time of the arrest, the state of Tennessee had been hit with record flooding, which forced many areas in the state to be subjected to flash flooding where water rose very rapidly. In light of the devastating impact of the flowing, an individual was able to move quickly using a non-motorized vehicle like a bicycle rather than on foot in order to escape the rising waters. The woman rode a bicycle onto a section of interstate highway until reaching a safe exit section in order to escape the rising waters near her home. She was arrested as she exited the highway because her actions violated regulations on safety on interstate highways. Actually, the woman's actions violated regulations by the National Transportation Administration that prohibited operating non-motorized vehicles along interstate highways. Issue: The issue presented in this case is whether the defendant had the right to violate congressional law and a federal administrative regulation relating to safety on interstate highways because of a state of emergency.

Rule: The Congress enacted legislation many years ago regarding safety on interstate highways. Since then, the National Transportation Administration has issued several regulations that prohibit certain conduct on interstate highways. These regulations by NTA have been developed and enforced based on congressional law and the need to ensure the safety of citizens while addressing safety concerns. The defendant's actions can only be considered legal or illegal based on the rule of law or regulations applicable to the situation. The rule in this case is that congressional law and federal administrative regulation makes it illegal to operate and/or utilize a non-motorized vehicle in an interstate highway (Walston-Dunham, 2012).

Analysis: Congressional law and federal administrative regulations on safety in interstate highway systems basically prohibit operating non-motorized vehicles on these systems. Based on this law and administrative regulations, an individual found to be operating a non-motorized vehicle in an interstate highway is guilty of violating the law. Additionally, such an individual can be penalized for endangering his/her safety as well as the safety of others. In this situation, it is quite clear that the defendant was guilty of violating congressional law and administrative regulations by the National Transportation Administration....

However, it is not clear whether the rule is applicable in a state of emergency.
The state of Tennessee was hit by record flooding in 2010, which is an indication of a state of emergency. As the water from the flash flood rose very quickly around her home, the woman decided to escape using a non-motorized vehicle (bicycle) since it was a quicker means of transport than walking or running. Therefore, the woman exercised reasonable care to safeguard her life since her home was flooding. In such state of emergencies, relocating people to safer areas or encouraging them to find ways of escape is the most ideal thing to do. This implies that the woman's action to escape the flooding was the reasonable thing to do in order to ensure safety. Additionally, the woman used the interstate highway to escape since it was the safest escape route at that time. Since this section of the interstate highway was soon underwater, there was relatively no other safe route of escape. As a result, the woman did not intentionally endanger her life or the safety of others, but was actually protecting herself.

Given these pertinent facts, while the woman clearly violated congressional law and NTA regulations, she acted in the best possible way to safeguard her life during the state of emergency. In essence, the defendant's actions were not motivated by deliberate violation of the law, but protecting herself from the harmful effects of the flash flood.

Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, the judge should acquit the defendant of all charges against her because she acted in a state of emergency. Even though her actions clearly violated congressional law and federal administrative regulations, her actions are justifiable on the premise that they were not deliberate breach of the law, but response to a state of emergency. In a state of emergency, the safety of the every citizen is the highest priority and was the focus of the defendant. The ordinary thing to do in such a state is to escape the flood using the safest available route or mechanism, which is exactly what the defendant did when operating the bicycle on an interstate highway system. Therefore, the defendant would be acquitted of the charges because her actions were a natural response to an emergency.

Application 2.2 -- Case Brief

Case Facts: According to a state law, all schools are required to disclose all claims of sexual misconduct by staff to police officers and suspend the accused without pay until the issue is resolved by the police. Based on this law,…