Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers in the Woodlawn community.

Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers in the Woodlawn community. They have been recognized, both within the police department and by the community, for their outstanding service. While on patrol in downtown Woodlawn late one evening, Jones and Henderson observe an individual sleeping on a park bench in the town square. The individual is Fred Ames, a homeless person known in the community for his trouble with alcohol and illicit substances. Ames has a twenty-year history of bad choices and bad luck, and most in Woodlawn “know his story.” Woodlawn does not have a law against vagrancy or homelessness.Determined to “clean up” the downtown area, the officers demand that Ames seat himself in the back of the squad car. Reluctantly, and without the use of force on the part of Jones and Henderson, Ames complies. Officers Jones and Henderson transport Ames to a rural area, where they release him on a dark country road, and warn him not to return to Woodlawn until he “cleans up his act once and for all.”Have Officers Jones and Henderson committed a tort against Ames? Are the officers within the “privilege of their authority” in removing Ames from the downtown area? Did the officers act unethically? As a business person do you believe that Woodlawn should implement a law against vagrancy/homelessness?*At least 1 paragraph in word length is needed

Going through the case it should be commented that both the law enforcement officersdidn’t commit a tort against Ames. One can affirm to this notion by going through the definitionof tort which...