Final Paper
Name
Institution
Course Code and Name
Instructor
Due Date
Final Paper
Question 1
Police pursuits can create a dangerous situation for the police, eluder, and other parties such as civilians (“Police Chase Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.”, 2019). Fred’s parents can sue the police by filing a police pursuit lawsuit. Fred was intoxicated, as indicated by the color of his eyes and odor. He had been cited five more times; thus, the police officer in question had probable cause to stop Fred. It is not clear what medical treatment Fred had sought in his prior arrests. However, the fact that he had sought medical treatment on two occasions is indicative of underlying health issues. The officer assisted Fred out of his car and did not use unnecessary force. In this case, Fred’s family cannot sue the police on the grounds of unnecessary force during an arrest. Fred intimated that he would be in the obituaries if the police arrested him. The officer made the mother aware of the statement made by Fred. In this situation, the parents can also not sue the police officer since Fred’s mum was made aware of Fred’s threat. Since Fred was not in police custody and was released into the care of his mother, any action thereof taken by Fred could not be held liable by the police. The mother was, therefore, responsible.
In light of this fact, the parents cannot sue the police for any action taken by Fred outside of the police station. It is, however, essential to note that Fred disappeared with the dad’s gun the following day. The dad reported the incident and requested that no one dealt with Fred until he calmed him down first. It is on this ground that the parents could sue the police because the request was not fulfilled. Officer Barnes saw a speeding car and gave chase. In this regard, the police flaunted the dad’s appeal of being the first point of contact. Bearing in mind that the police knew of the impending suicide attempt, Fred’s parents have grounds for suing the police. Police officers must be aware of the dangers involved as far as the police, public, and a suspect is concerned (Kuntz, 2006, p9). Fred got out of the car and shot himself after the officer Barnes pursued him. Even though Fred did not die, the incidence would have resulted in death. The parents, in this case, have a claim against the police as regards injury resulting from police pursuit. The parents could file a section 1983 lawsuit against the police. The lawsuit indicates that a police officer is liable for damage or harm experienced by the injured party during a pursuit (Ross, 2018, p315). Fred, in this case, could be compensated for the injuries sustained as a result of the attempted suicide.
Officer Barnes and the other police officers at the station were aware of the missing person report and the suicide attempt. Officer Barnes, under the directive of Chief Wilson, typed the missing person report. However, later that morning, officer Barnes gave chase to a speeding car that was flaunting traffic rules. Fred was the driver, but Officer Barnes was not aware of the fact. Fred continued to speed and got out of the car with the firearm in his hand. The police officers, in this regard, could use the lack of knowledge of the drivers as a defense. Barnes was not aware that Fred was the driver of the car she was pursuing. In this regard, she did not flaunt the request knowingly. Despite brandishing a gun at Officer Barnes and officer Rubble, the officers did not shoot back and instead hid behind their cars.
The action is indicative that the officers had no intention of harming Fred. However, Fred carried out the suicide threat by shooting himself while on police pursuit. Barnes was not aware that she was chasing Fred hence her defense. It was also not possible to call Fred’s dad after the pursuit as Fred used the gun shortly after getting out of the car. In this regard, having the father as his first contact to calm him down would not have been possible. The officers, in this regard, acted based on the prevailing circumstances. Despite asking Fred’s mum to seek treatment for Fred after she collected him from the police station, the two went home. The mum instead chose to ignore the sentiments given by the officer. Officer Rubble, in this case, could use the incidence in his defense. Had the parents sought medical attention for Fred, the incidence may not have occurred. A duty of care by the police is required during a police car pursuit (“Property Damage and Injuries Due to a Police Chase”, 2020). In this case, the injury suffered was inflicted by the suspect and not the police.
Question 2
Harm and injury fall under tort (Ross, 2018, p35). Clark sustained injuries in prison during a fire break out. The injury, however, was not intentional and happened in the melee that resulted in the fire. The two people involved in the injury infliction were the police officer and inmate. The police officer stepped on Clark unintentionally. In this regard, Clark cannot successfully sue a tort case against the police officer. A tort suit has to be intentional, negligent, and strict liability (Ross, 2018, p35). Harm and injury fall under tort. The injury Clark suffered as a result of being stepped on by the officer did not fulfill any of the three tort categories. As such, Clark cannot sue the officer as he did not intentionally step on Clark. The inmate, on the other hand, deliberately punched Clark in the nose. In this regard, a tort case could suffice under the intentional harm category.
The prison litigation reform act was incepted to reduce litigations by inmates against prisons (Poser, 2016). It is, however, essential to note that a prisoner’s claims must be dealt with from an administrative point (“Prison Litigation Reform Act – FindLaw”, 2019). It, therefore, means that Clark would have to seek administrative redress before seeking litigation. Due to the administrative involvement, prisoners rarely get their cases heard in a court of law. Clark would be suing an inmate in the same prison, which would further complicate the issue. The involvement of an inmate in the suit would require having prison administrative mediation. In this regard, even though the injury would fit the tort category, it would most likely be dealt with at the prison level and not the court level. As such, the prison would decide the way forward as regards Clark’s nose injury. Compensation would be, in this case, as deemed fit by the prison administration. The offender is a convict, thereby making compensation more complicated. Compensation through monetary terms may be challenging. As such, the prison administration may deem alternative measures as regards to the incident. The police officer would not be liable to compensate Clark as the injury sustained was unintentional.
Even though the punch was intentional, the convict could argue otherwise. Likely, other convicts may not be willing to testify against the convict. If the incident was not documented on camera at the prison, it might be difficult for Clark to prove intentional injury by the inmate. Having a case against the inmate would, in this regard, be challenging. Clark can also not sue the prison for not giving him extra pillows, and the doctor documented lactose-free milk as non of the requirements. As such, Clark would have no case against the officer who declines his milk and pillow request. He would also have no claim against the officer who accidentally steps on his arm. It is important to note that Clark gets knocked down in the fracas following the fire outbreak. The circumstances of the situation in this regard do not support Clark’s suit.
The only likely litigation is against the inmate. However, proving the intentional harm would be difficult. In this regard, Clark may not be successful in any litigation effort. Prison litigations are exhaustively dealt with administratively before being taken through a court process. It thus means that Clark’s litigation attempts would be further made difficult by the fact. Bearing the existing circumstances in mind, the police officer would succeed against Clark. Proving the inmates’ intentional injury would be challenging as well. The inmate and police officer in this regard would likely be successful as Clark would not. A litigation attempt by Clark would, given the existing circumstances, fail.
References
Kuntz, N. (2006). Vehicular pursuits : policy analysis and recommendations for the Missoula
Police Department. Scholarworks.umt.edu. Retrieved 26 April 2020, from https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9940&context=etd.
Police Chase Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.. Definitions.uslegal.com. (2019).
Retrieved 26 April 2020, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/police-chase/.
Poser, R. (2016). Why It’s Nearly Impossible for Prisoners to Sue Prisons. The New Yorker.
Retrieved 26 April 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-its-nearly-impossible-for-prisoners-to-sue-prisons.
Prison Litigation Reform Act – FindLaw. Findlaw. (2019). Retrieved 26 April 2020, from
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/prison-litigation-reform-act.html.
Property Damage and Injuries Due to a Police Chase. Hg.org. (2020). Retrieved 26 April 2020,
from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/property-damage-and-injuries-due-to-a-police-chase-47682.
Ross, D. (2018). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice (7th ed.). Routledge.