Jonah Patel
The police's duty to protect citizens is a highly debated topic. While police cars may be emblazoned with the words To Protect and Serve, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. This has been further supported by a federal judge, who ruled that government agencies, including police agencies, have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general. However, exceptional circumstances may create a duty and give rise to potential liability under Section 1983.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Police have a Federal constitutional duty to protect citizens against domestic violence | No |
| Police have a general duty to protect citizens from harm | No |
| Police have a specific obligation to protect | No |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Police have no general obligation to protect citizens from harm
- Police have no duty to protect citizens against domestic violence
- Police have no duty to protect students who are not in custody
- Police have no duty to protect individuals from gun violence
- Police have no duty to protect children from abusive parents
Police have no general obligation to protect citizens from harm
Following the 2023 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection. However, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies "had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody". This decision adds to a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies, including police agencies, have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general.
Although exceptional circumstances may create such a duty and give rise to potential liability under Section 1983, lawsuits against the police for a failure to protect may have a greater likelihood of success in State court. The potential for liability based on Federal constitutional claims is discussed in the context of recent court decisions involving suits against the police. However, as a general rule, the courts have determined that police do not have a constitutionally imposed duty to protect citizens against domestic violence.
News Propaganda: Free Speech or Constitution Conundrum?
You may want to see also
Police have no duty to protect citizens against domestic violence
Police have no general duty to protect citizens against domestic violence. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
In general, the courts have determined that police do not have a constitutionally imposed duty to protect citizens against domestic violence. This means that police agencies and individual officers are not liable to individual citizens for failure to provide adequate police protection.
However, there are circumstances under which police can be held liable for a breach of duty. For example, if a police officer or department has a "special relationship" with the injured party, they may be liable. This special relationship occurs when a victim has contacted the police about the victimization, and the police have either made a promise of protection that was unfulfilled or failed to comply with a mandatory-arrest law by not taking the abuser into custody.
Additionally, exceptional circumstances may create a duty and give rise to potential liability under Section 1983, and lawsuits against the police for failure to protect may have a greater likelihood of success in State court.
It is important to note that police negligence and gender bias in the handling of cases of domestic and sexual violence is a serious civil and human rights violation. To guard against liability for failure to protect citizens, police agencies should promulgate a written policy regarding the handling of domestic assault calls and document the training officers receive in handling domestic violence situations.
Constitutional Rights: Do Corporations Hold Them?
You may want to see also
Police have no duty to protect students who are not in custody
In the United States, the police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm. This was established in the 1989 DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services case, where the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father.
The police's lack of duty to protect has also been upheld in cases involving students. Following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students claimed that local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection. However, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies, including the police, "had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody".
This decision adds to a growing body of case law that establishes that government agencies, including police agencies, have no general duty to protect citizens from harm, even when they are aware that the harm will occur. While exceptional circumstances may create a duty of protection and give rise to potential liability under Section 1983, lawsuits against the police for failure to protect are more likely to succeed in State court.
Riots and the Constitution: What's Protected and What's Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Police have no duty to protect individuals from gun violence
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father.
In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that government agencies, including police agencies, had no duty to provide protection to students following a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The judge stated that "neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm—even when they know the harm will occur".
While lawsuits against the police for failure to protect may have a greater likelihood of success in State court, as a general rule, the courts have determined that police do not have a constitutionally imposed duty to protect citizens against domestic violence.
Polygamy's Constitutional Protection: Interpreting Relationship Rights
You may want to see also
Police have no duty to protect children from abusive parents
The decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services has been supported by a growing body of case law, which establishes that government agencies, including police agencies, have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general. This means that police officers are not legally required to protect individual persons from harm, even if they know the harm will occur.
While police may not have a constitutional duty to protect, there are some exceptional circumstances that can create a duty and give rise to potential liability under Section 1983. Lawsuits against the police for failure to protect may be more likely to succeed in State court, and the potential for liability based on Federal constitutional claims is discussed in the context of recent court decisions involving suits against the police.
Despite the lack of a constitutional duty, police officers often do their best to protect citizens from harm. However, it is important to remember that they are not legally obligated to do so.
US Nationals: What Protections Does the Constitution Guarantee?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect.
Yes, but the likelihood of success is greater in State court.
Low. A federal judge ruled that government agencies, including police agencies, have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general.
The courts have determined that police do not have a constitutionally imposed duty to protect citizens against domestic violence.
In 1989, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father.
