1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

supreme court ruling: police do not have to intercede

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dr_2_B, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. Dr_2_B

    Dr_2_B Well-Known Member

    Can someone point me to the supreme court ruling we've heard of that says police officers are not required to intercede in certain situations to protect a citizen? I know my question is wanting, but I have a feeling someone will know what I'm talking about. It's an argument we use to support the rights of individuals to protect themselves in lieu of relying on LEOs.

  2. ccsniper

    ccsniper member

  3. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    As noted in the link, Riss and Warren are the notable cases - just not US Supreme Court. I don't believe that issue has ever risen to the level of a constitutional problem.

    A similar link to the first one posted.

    The usual phrasing of the question is "Do police have a duty to protect individuals?"
  4. Dashman010

    Dashman010 Member

    The case on point most recently is Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). It involved a restraining order that commanded police to enforce if there had been a violation. The police didn't, and the court held that there was no 14th amendment property interest in police protection. A quote is appropriate and sums it up nicely:

    "We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989)
  5. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    On the Supreme Court ruling on the Gonzales case:



    It sure does.

Share This Page