police not liable for failure to protect

[mek42]

I heard from a friend that there was a major court case (perhaps SCOTUS) where an individual sued a police department for failing to protect them (or their loved ones) in a crime against persons and the ultimate result was that the police department was found not liable. Does anyone know more about this? Specifically, I'm hoping to be able to find the case and read it myself. I'm afraid I don't know enough details to even begin my own search.

Thanks!

 

[Legion1776]

If that's the case. I'd think it could only help our cause. Then again, common sense isn't exactly in abundance these days.

 

[DDrake]

There been 3 cases by the supreme court that make it impossible to sue the police. The first case involved 3 girls, 2 called 911 upstairs for 30 mins because their other roommate (first floor) was being raped. After awhile, they didn't hear anything and decided to go down stairs to help her, and for the next 14 hours these men did as they pleased to all 3 girls. A lower court ruled the police/911 operator were responsible because they didn't even bother to send help, but it reached the supreme court where it was ruled that individuals are responsible for their OWN self.... police are responsible for the collective-community (not any one individual).




So yea, don't depend on the police.

 

[TexasRifleman]

For direct quotes from courts here are a couple......

This has ben the case for many years and it's been one of the arguments for citizens to protect themselves.

Note that one of the more famous cases comes from DC, big shock.....that's the rape case referred to above.

". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1

"A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.

 

[DDrake]

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.







Just one of many, trying to find the one with the 3 girls being raped.

 

[Sindawe]

There been 3 cases by the supreme court that make it impossible to sue the police. The first case involved 3 girls, 2 called 911 upstairs for 30 mins because their other roommate (first floor) was being raped. After awhile, they didn't hear anything and decided to go down stairs to help her, and for the next 14 hours these men did as they pleased to all 3 girls. A lower court ruled the police/911 operator were responsible because they didn't even bother to send help, but it reached the supreme court where it was ruled that individuals are responsible for their OWN self.... police are responsible for the collective-community (not any one individual).

IIRC, this case took place in Washington D.C. where local laws make difficult to have an assembled & loaded firearm in the house.

On searching, yep, Washington.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Source: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

On the Gonzales case, I think Colorado had dropped their background check in favor of the federal one. CBI would have prevented the husbands purchase of the handgun used, while the feds permited it.

More infor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

 

[ALHunter]

A seminal case out of U.S. Supreme Court is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services. 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989). Relevant for your question is thislanguage from SCOTUS:

"But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means." 109 S. Ct. at 1003.

"Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." 109 S. Ct. at 1003.

"As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause." 109 S. Ct. at 1004.

For general reference by states and Circuit Courts of Appeal, see also:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of App., 1981); Riss v. City of New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of App. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 382 A.2d 929 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of App. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of App.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982); Riss v. City of New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of App. 1958); Freeeman v. Ferguson 911 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1990); Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D. Conn. 1984); and McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 727 (1990).

 

[PPGMD]

The Warren case is disgusting, it along with the crime stats for Vermont and other states with fairly open guns laws show the proof the firearms are needed for self-defense.

If one of the girls upstairs had a pistol then perhaps they could have at least prevented their own rapes.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If one of the girls upstairs had a pistol then perhaps they could have at least prevented their own rapes.

But think of the guilt she would have had to live with if she'd shot someone!
She's much better off being raped.





Don't any of you dare attribute that crap to me, the damn VPC actually had the nerve to put that in writing.

 

[SteveS]

This has always been the law. As a matter of public policy, can you imagine what it would be like if the state was responsible for preventing crime? They would go bankrupt if every single crime victim could sue for a failure to protect. While I would expect the police to help me if they could, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to be my bodyguards.

 

[plexreticle]

Contrary to popular belief the police have no obligation to protect you. Their job is to arrest criminals.

 

[jethro75]

I was jsut thinking about this the ohter day when I was in another town and saw several city police cruisers and on the side it states with big letters "to Serve and Protect" Maybe someone could sue them for false advertisement

 

[Deanimator]

I was jsut thinking about this the ohter day when I was in another town and saw several city police cruisers and on the side it states with big letters "to Serve and Protect" Maybe someone could sue them for false advertisement

I'll never forget the guy in usenet who told me that the police HAD to protect him, PRECISELY because it said that on the doors of the police cars!

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Contrary to popular belief the police have no obligation to protect you. Their job is to arrest criminals.

Nope, their job is to protect the Government...

See: Katrina (Big A** Hurricane) Victims v. New Orleans (their own thugs + the CHP)

 

[TX1911fan]

These cases go back to the earliest days when police forces were first implemented. And, these holdings are absolutely correct. We cannot expect that the police can protect each of us, and we don't want every person who is the victim of a crime to be able to sue the police. They are funded by the taxpayers, meaning US, so if we allowed these suits, we'd just be providing crime insurance, and those people living in low crime areas would be trasnferring even more of their wealth to people in high crime areas.

This is exactly the reason for the Second Amendment. No one is responsible for my safety except me.

 

[yhtomit]

For TexasRifleman

TR wrote:

"Don't any of you dare attribute that crap to me, the damn VPC actually had the nerve to put that in writing."

What's the damn VPC?

I'm missing it somewhere in here ...

timothy

 

[.cheese.]

I've come to realize that the police really are there to find and arrest criminals, and not so much to be society's security guards.

When I came to that realization, I bought a gun.

 

[plexreticle]

Nope, their job is to protect the Government...

See: Katrina (Big A** Hurricane) Victims v. New Orleans (their own thugs + the CHP)

I stand corrected.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As a matter of public policy, can you imagine what it would be like if the state was responsible for preventing crime?

Yet oddly enough, if you get mugged in a Wal Mart parking lot, you can sue Wal Mart.

Now, if you don't like the security at Wal mart, you can always go to a different different store. Or you can simply not buy whatever it is they're selling.

But you can't go to a different government, nor refuse to pay for the one you have. So why are governments held to lower standards than private businesses?

 

[Car Knocker]

Because the taxpayers can't afford the higher standard.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What's the damn VPC?

That quote about being raped is better than living with the guilt of shooting someone came out of the Violence Policy Center a while back.

That was their recommendation to women as far as self defense goes, since the police are not required to protect you and of course you should never protect yourself because there might be violence. And that is just not cricket.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The question is, can we afford the lower standard?

We pay for police protection -- shouldn't we get it?

 

[DMK]

Man, with gun control, what a position the govt. puts the citizen in.

On one hand: We have no obligation to protect you, that's your responsibility.

On the other hand: You have no right to arm yourself for self protection.

 

[hunttheevil]

I agree with the fact that the police protect the populous and not the individual, and I agree with their job being to arrest criminals. But, when two women call 911 and the dispatcher does not send anyone, and the entire group of women are raped and tortured after 30 minutes of no response, somebody needs to be responsible for that.
A similar case occured in Jax, Fl not to long ago where several people in an apartment complex called 911 to report a mother and her boyfriend, or whatever he was, was beating a child to death. The nearest officer was 1.5 miles away and took twenty something minutes to respond. He doesn't have a job anymore. I'll see if I can find the article and post.

 

[hunttheevil]

Here's the article:
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An Arlington couple accused of beating a 5-year-old girl earlier this month remain in jail on child abuse charges, but a second investigation is under way on why it took police so long to respond.

Police said 21-year-old Brittane Stanard, 21, and her boyfriend, Kahlil Mabuyi, 25, hit the child repeatedly for 30 minutes -- most of that time after the first call was place to 911.

According to dispatchers, the first call came into the 911 center at 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 4:

Caller: "They are, like, trying to kill the child."
Operator: "Are they outside or inside the apartment?"
Caller: "No, they're inside but you can hear it through the door."
Operator: "OK, we'll get officers out there."

Fourteen minutes later, another neighbor called 911:
Caller: "I'd like to report a child being abused. Someone else called it in about 20 minutes ago, and police haven't gotten here yet."

A third call was placed four minutes later:
Caller: "The people upstairs are about to kill their daughter. They are beating her and beating her and she is screaming. They won't stop. This has been going on."
Operator: "How old is the child?"
Caller: She's like 4 or 5. They're throwing her around. I need to go up there."
Operator: "Ma'am, no, no, do not."
Caller: "It's been 25 minutes."
Operator: "Let the police handle that. You do not need to go up there and get shot or hurt."
Caller: "OK. No, but she's going to die. If they keep hitting her like this, she's going to die."
Operator: "Ma'am, the officers are on the way and in the area. Do not go up there."

About 24 minutes after the first call for help, an officer arriveed on the scene.

Stanard told officers her daughter had disobeyed and deserved an "old-fashioned beating."

The police reports said officers "observed welts and considerable swelling on both of the victim's legs, both of her arms, both of her shoulders, her back, her stomach and her chest."

The girl is out of the hospital and in state custody.