State Law and Law

¶ … 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, a high school senior recently accused the band instructor of sexually inappropriate behavior during music classes. The school filed charges against the band instructor and immediately suspended him. The teacher pleaded innocent to these charges and a trial was soon held. The evidence presented in the case showed that the instructor would rarely hold students' musical instruments while teaching while he used demonstration in most cases. Additionally, he never spent more time with a single student over others while the student who accused him had never been in a private lesson, but regular lessons with the others. In line with the evidence, the court eventually determined that the teacher was not guilty of the charges and he was soon reinstated to his previous position. The teacher filed a lawsuit against the state law on the premise that it infringed the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty (Walston-Dunham, 2012).

Issue: The issue in this case is whether the state law results in the violation of the principle of innocent until proven guilty by subjecting the defendant to poor treatment even before the matter was conclusively resolved in a court of law.

Rule: The presumption of innocence is a tenet or principle in common law and has been widely established in every legal system. The concept of innocent until proven guilty has been a fundamental tenet of law for a long period of time i.e. since 1895. Based on this concept, law enforcement agencies and personnel have to gather evidence and present it to a court of law to prove an individual's involvement in committing a criminal offense (Morvillo, 2016). While the band instructor was accused of sexually inappropriate behaviors towards one of his students, he should get the benefit of doubt based on this concept of presumption of innocence. The rule of law in this case as commonly practiced in the legal system is that an accused person or defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Analysis: Statutes are usually written in general terms and are designed to be applicable to every individual (Walston-Dunham, 2012). In this regard, judicial interpretation helps in examining a specific situation regarding the applicability of a statute or state law based on the case facts. When determining the applicability of a state law or statute to a particular situation or case, the intent for drafting and enacting the law is examined. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been utilized in the legal system for a long period of time because it's a crucial factor towards guaranteeing a fair trial.

The state law or statute that provides the premise for suspension of an accused staff member without pay pending determination of the case was drafted and enforced to help ensure that the accused does not interfere with the investigation process. In some cases, when an accused individual holds an influential position in the institution, he/she is likely to interfere with investigations in his/her favor. Therefore, the general premise for the creation and enforcing this statute is to ensure that the accused is not in a position of influencing or interfering with the process of investigation. The statute was not established to violate the principle of presumption of innocence but protect the integrity of investigations and collection of evidence though the accused experienced difficulties in securing employment and without pay.