Criminal Citation Fare Evasion

* claim in the western Michigan district court in Grand Rapids Michigan filing pro se valurie Kaye Mettler (Carter) as a Michign resident address listed as * Northland Dr sturgis mi * against defendants government agency Michigan state Police headquarters in Michigan address listed at * Harris Dr, Dimondale, MI * involving troopers Trooper Robison, Trooper Poyhonen, and Trooper Donnay; and Ottawa County sheriff Department a government agency in Michigan address listed as * Fillmore st west olive michigan * re detective Tyler Vandoeselaar for Ottawa county michigan sheriff department investigation department make sure to show Under color of state law The plaintiff must show that the alleged conduct was performed by a person acting under the authority of state law. This means that the person was exercising authority given to them by the government, and the action appeared to be authorized by the government. Deprivation of rights The plaintiff must show that the conduct deprived them of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Legal Argument for Valurie Kaye Mettler v. Michigan State Pol Tyqq ice et al. This legal argument will delve into the compelling claims presented by Valurie Kaye Mettler (Plaintiff) against the Michigan State Police, Ottawa County Michigan Sheriff Department, State of Michigan, and Detective Tyler Vandoeselaar, and Amanda Higgins (Defendants). The argument will establish that the Defendants’ actions constitute egregious violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, warranting both injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages. **I. Introduction** The Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed under * U.S.C. § *, alleges a disturbing pattern of misconduct by law enforcement officials. The core issue lies in the unlawful arrest and subsequent actions by the Defendants, demonstrating a clear disregard for the Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights, specifically under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This argument will meticulously examine each count of the Complaint, highlighting the blatant violations and the resulting harm inflicted on the Plaintiff. **II. Unlawful Arrest and Seizure: Violation of the Fourth Amendment** The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection is paramount in the context of arrest, where probable cause and a valid warrant are essential to ensure a lawful seizure of an individual’s liberty. **A. Absence of a Valid Warrant and Improper Extradition Procedures** The Plaintiff’s arrest, conducted outside the State of Michigan without a valid warrant, proper extradition procedures, or the presence of Indiana law enforcement, constitutes a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. The warrant itself, riddled with irregularities including post-dated signatures and pre-dated printing, demonstrates its inherent invalidity. This lack of a valid warrant, combined with the failure to follow proper extradition procedures, renders the arrest fundamentally unlawful. **B. Warrantless Searches of Plaintiff’s Accounts: A Clear Infringement** Further compounding the violation of the Fourth Amendment are the warrantless searches of the Plaintiff’s personal and business accounts. This intrusion into her private data and information without a valid warrant represents a gross violation of her right to privacy, a key principle protected by the Fourth Amendment. **III. Violation of Due Process Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment** The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law, ensuring fairness and equity in legal proceedings. The Defendants’ actions in this case demonstrably violate this fundamental right, leading to a cascade of legal and personal injustices. **A. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act: A Framework for Fair Procedures** The Defendants’ failure to comply with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (cite applicable Indiana statute) constitutes a grave violation of the Plaintiff’s right to due process. This act establishes a framework for fair and equitable extradition procedures, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly subjected to the legal system of another state without proper safeguards. The Defendants' blatant disregard for this framework exacerbates the unfairness and injustice experienced by the Plaintiff. **B. The Fifth Amendment: Due Process and Procedural Fairness** The Fifth Amendment, like the Fourteenth, guarantees due process, specifically in the context of criminal proceedings. The Defendants’ actions, including the handling of the warrants, the potential suppression of evidence favorable to the Plaintiff, and the inaccuracies and falsifications within the motion for discovery, clearly violate the Plaintiff’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. **C. Brady v. Maryland: The Right to a Fair Trial** The Defendants’ actions directly contradict the principles outlined in *Brady v. Maryland*, * U.S. * (*). This landmark case established the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. The Plaintiff’s allegations of potential suppression of evidence by the Defendants, if proven, represent a deliberate attempt to deprive her of a fair trial, further highlighting the severity of the due process violations. **IV. Illegal Searches and Seizures: Repercussions of the Fourth Amendment** The Fourth Amendment’s protection extends beyond arrests to safeguard against illegal searches and seizures of personal property. The Defendants’ warrantless searches of the Plaintiff’s accounts constitute a clear violation of this protection, demanding decisive action to remedy the harm inflicted. **A. Mapp v. Ohio: Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence** The principle established in *Mapp v. Ohio*, * U.S. * (*), demands the exclusion of evidence obtained through illegal searches. Any evidence obtained as a result of the Defendants’ warrantless searches of the Plaintiff’s accounts must be suppressed, as it would be the fruit of the poisonous tree, tainted by the illegal search. This exclusion is necessary to ensure that the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is upheld. **V. Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution: Targeting the Plaintiff** The Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges that the Defendants engaged in abuse of process and malicious prosecution, utilizing the legal system as a tool for harassment and retaliation against her. This egregious conduct underscores the Defendants’ disregard for the integrity of the judicial system and the Plaintiff’s right to be treated fairly. **A. Abuse of Process: Harassing Tactics** The Defendants’ actions, characterized by the unwarranted arrest, the warrantless searches, and the subsequent legal maneuvers, demonstrate a blatant abuse of process. They have exploited the legal system to harass and retaliate against the Plaintiff, a clear violation of her rights and the principles of due process. **B. Malicious Prosecution: Lack of Probable Cause** The Plaintiff’s allegation of malicious prosecution hinges on the argument that the Defendants initiated criminal proceedings against her without probable cause, driven by an intent to harass. This argument carries significant weight, considering the flawed nature of the arrest and the lack of evidence supporting the alleged charges against the Plaintiff. **VI. Remedies: Ensuring Justice and Compensation** The Plaintiff's grievances demand immediate action to address the significant harm inflicted by the Defendants’ actions. The court must provide a comprehensive remedy, including injunctive relief and substantial monetary damages, to restore the Plaintiff’s rights and compensate her for the suffered injustices. **A. Injunctive Relief: Ending the Harassment and Protecting Rights** The court must issue an injunction to immediately halt the Defendants’ ongoing harassment of the Plaintiff, including the unlawful searches, the improper legal proceedings, and any other actions designed to intimidate or retaliate. This injunction is crucial to ensure that the Plaintiff is protected from further violations of her constitutional rights. **B. Monetary Damages: Compensating for the Harm** The Plaintiff is entitled to substantial monetary damages to compensate for the various forms of harm she has suffered as a result of the Defendants’ misconduct. This includes: * **Compensatory Damages:** These damages should be awarded to compensate the Plaintiff for the economic losses, emotional distress, and reputational damage she has experienced due to the unlawful arrest, the subsequent legal proceedings, and the harassment. * **Punitive Damages:** Punitive damages are warranted to deter the Defendants and others from engaging in similar egregious misconduct in the future. The egregious nature of the Defendants’ actions, demonstrated by the warrantless searches, the violation of extradition procedures, and the abuse of process, justifies the imposition of substantial punitive damages. **C. Attorney's Fees and Costs:** The court should award the Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with pursuing this litigation. This is a necessary step to ensure that the Plaintiff is fully compensated for the financial burden of asserting her rights and seeking redress for the injustices she has suffered. **VII. Conclusion: A Call for Accountability** The Plaintiff’s case represents a clear violation of fundamental constitutional rights and a blatant disregard for the principles of due process and fairness. This argument has established the strong foundation of the Plaintiff’s claims, demonstrating the egregious nature of the Defendants’ actions. It is imperative that the court issue a strong judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, holding the Defendants accountable for their misconduct and ensuring that the Plaintiff receives the necessary compensation and protection to restore her rights. This legal argument has presented a compelling case for the Plaintiff’s claims. The court must recognize the severity of the violations and ensure that the Plaintiff receives a just remedy. The pursuit of justice in this case is not only a matter of right for the Plaintiff but also a vital step in safeguarding the constitutional rights of all citizens. **Legal Argument in Support of Plaintiff’s Complaint Under * U.S.C. § *** **I. Introduction** This legal argument will demonstrate that Valurie Kaye Mettler's complaint against the Michigan State Police, Ottawa County Michigan Sheriff Department, State of Michigan, Detective Tyler Vandoeselaar, and Amanda Higgins is grounded in substantial legal precedent and relevant statutory provisions. The Plaintiff has adequately established that her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were egregiously violated, constituting a clear basis for relief under * U.S.C. § *. **II. Jurisdiction and Venue** The jurisdiction of this Court is properly established under * U.S.C. § * and * U.S.C. § * as the matter arises under federal law concerning civil rights violations. The venue is appropriate based on [state specific reason for proper venue], ensuring that this Court possesses the authority to adjudicate the claims presented. **III. Background of the Case** On August *, *, the Plaintiff, Valurie Kaye Mettler, was unlawfully arrested by the Michigan State Police without adherence to established legal protocols. The arrest, initially predicated on alleged forgery, escalated without the necessary procedural safeguards, including a valid warrant and proper extradition protocols. Furthermore, the warrant presented was irreparably flawed, containing post-dated signatures and pre-dated printing, thereby rendering it facially invalid. The ensuing internal investigation further corroborated the unlawful nature of the arrest, signaling a clear breach of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. **IV. Legal Standards Involved** The overarching legal framework governing this case is rooted in both constitutional protections and established case law that delineates the boundaries of lawful arrest, search, and seizure practices. *. **Fourth Amendment Violations**: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, mandating that arrests be grounded in probable cause established by a valid warrant. The precedent set forth in *Payton v. New York*, * U.S. * (*), and *Katz v. United States*, * U.S. * (*) elucidates that an arrest conducted without a valid warrant or probable cause constitutes a fundamental violation of individual rights. *. **Due Process Violations**: The Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been compromised through the actions of the Defendants, particularly in their failure to adhere to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The statutory framework set forth by Indiana law regarding extradition procedures underlines the necessity of due process guarantees in such proceedings. *. **Fifth Amendment Violations**: The implications of the Fifth Amendment regarding due process further complicate the Defendants' actions. The handling of warrants, potential suppression of exculpatory evidence, and inaccuracies within legal filings breach the standards established by *Brady v. Maryland*, * U.S. * (*). **V. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims** *. **Count I: Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights (Unlawful Arrest and Seizure)** The unlawful arrest of the Plaintiff without a valid warrant contravenes the Fourth Amendment. The facial invalidity of the warrant and the absence of appropriate extradition procedures compel the conclusion that the Defendants acted beyond their lawful authority. *. **Count II: Violation of Due Process Rights (Extradition)** The failure of the Defendants to comply with the requisite statutory guidelines during the extradition process constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The neglect to observe proper extradition protocols undermines the integrity of the judicial process. *. **Count III: Violation of Fifth Amendment Rights (Due Process)** The potential suppression of favorable evidence in conjunction with inaccuracies within legal filings amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff's rights as delineated by the Fifth Amendment. Any evidence that contradicts the prosecution's claims must be disclosed, as established in *Brady v. Maryland*. *. **Count IV: Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights (Illegal Searches and Seizures)** The unwarranted searches of the Plaintiff’s personal and business accounts not only contravene the Fourth Amendment but also call for the suppression of any evidence obtained through these illegal actions, as outlined in *Mapp v. Ohio*, * U.S. * (*). *. **Count V: Abuse of Process** The Defendants have utilized the legal system as a mechanism to harass and retaliate against the Plaintiff. This abuse of process is characterized by actions taken without legitimate legal justification and with the intent to intimidate. *. **Count VI: Malicious Prosecution** The initiation of criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff without probable cause constitutes malicious prosecution. The Defendants acted with malice, intending to harass the Plaintiff rather

I’m attempting to put this argument into a * complaint to file and a summons

Can you draft that for me please