1. what is thecounterargumentand which do you think is more persuasive? CounteranalysisLegal Position or Argument Based on a Court Opinion Issue: In the case of Baldonado v. State , the plaintiff sued the state for false arrest. In Baldonado , a police officer received information from the dispatcher concerning a violent domestic dispute that specifically described the plaintiff and his vehicle. The dispatcher reported that the plaintiff had been drinking and was leaving the residence with his two minor children. When the officer arrived at the residence, he saw the plaintiff and the two children in the described car. At the scene, the plaintiff's spouse and neighbors corroborated the dispatcher's information that a violent dispute had taken place. When the officer requested the plaintiff to shut off the engine and stay at the scene, the plaintiff attempted to leave. The officer stopped the plaintiff from leaving. The court noted that detention by a police officer is allowable only when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The court concluded that there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, and that the officer's detention of the defendant was lawful. Facts: The officer was dispatched to the plaintiff's residence to investigate a domestic dispute. When the officer arrived, he saw a red vehicle driving away from the residence. A neighbor who was standing on the sidewalk informed the officer that he thought a domestic dispute had taken place at his neighbor's house and the plaintiff had just left in the red vehicle. The officer pursued the plaintiff and required him to return to the residence. The plaintiff is suing the officer for illegally detaining him. 2. what are thecounterargumentsand which do you think are more persuasive? CounteranalysisLegal Position or Argument Based on Case Law In the following example, assume that the only court opinion on point is United States v. Leon Facts: Officer Jones submits to Judge Bean a request for a search warrant for the search of Steve's apartment. Officer Jones knows that there is notsufficientprobable cause for issuance of the warrant, but he also knows that Judge Bean favors law enforcement and will most likely issue the warrant anyway. Judge Bean issues the warrant. Officer Jones gives the warrant to other officers and instructs them to execute it. He does not tell them that he knows it is defective because of the lack of probable cause for its issuance. The other officers execute the warrant in the good-faith belief that it is valid. The officers find drugs, and charge Steve with possession. Steve moves for suppression of the evidence, claiming that the search wasillegaland the evidence must be excluded under the exclusionary rule. What is the counterargument to the prosecution's position in each of the following situations? Part A The prosecution argues that because the officers executing the warrant were acting in the good-faith belief that the warrant was valid, United States v. Leon governs the case. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, and therefore the evidence should not be suppressed. Part B Same facts except that Officer Jones delivers the warrant to members of the Citizens Protection Association, a private group of citizens trained by the police to assist in the performance of minor police functions. The group volunteers its services and is not employed by the police. They execute the warrant and make a citizen's arrest of Steve. The prosecution argues that United States v. Leon governs, and that case holds that the exclusionary rule is designed only to protect against police misconduct, not misconduct by private citizens. 3. Take into consideration the statute, the court opinion, and the facts of the case. What is the argument in support of the position that Tom defamed Allen and what is the counterargument to this argument ? Legislative Act: Section 41-1-6-9 of the state statutes defines defamation as the intentional publication of a false statement about a person. The statute defines publication as communication to a third person. Case Law: Ender v. Gault is an opinion of the highest court in the state. In the case, Gault wrote a letter to Ender accusing Ender of defrauding his clients. Gault intended to hand-deliver the letter to Ender at a party at Ender's house. Gault became intoxicated at the party and left the letter on Ender's kitchen table. The letter was in an unsealed envelope with Ender's name on it. A business competitor of Ender, who was at the party, opened and read the letter. Ender sued Gault for defamation. In its ruling in favor of Ender, the court stated that " intentional publication as used in the statute includes publication that occurs as a result of the gross negligence of the defendant." The court held that Gault's act of leaving the envelope unsealed on the kitchen table during a party constituted gross negligence. Facts: Tom is a business associate of Allen. He believes Allen is stealing from their clients. Tom writes a letter to Allen stating that he knows Allen is stealing and that he intends to file criminal charges. Tom, intending to hand-deliver the letter to Allen, goes to a restaurant where Allen usually has lunch. After waiting an hour for Allen, one of Alien's friends enters the restaurant. Tom folds the letter and seals it with tape. He gives the letter to the friend and asks him to deliver it to Allen. He does not tell the friend not to open the letter. The friend peels back the tape, reads the letter, reseals it, and delivers it to Allen. Allen finds out that the friend read the letter and sues Tom for defamation under 41-1-6-9