• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

supreme court ruling: police do not have to intercede

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr_2_B

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
1,850
Location
midwest
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.

Thanks.
 
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?"
 
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)
 
On the Supreme Court ruling on the Gonzales case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html

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)

It sure does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top