Malintent
Veteran Member
From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.htmlInteresting.. do you have any source for that ruling? I agree that it may be that in some cases they are not "necessarily obligated" to protect someone, situationally... I would like to learn what you are referring to, though, if you can provide more information.
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Here is the wikipedia entry Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.
finally had a chance to review...
That case was in regard to a complaint by a citizen about her husband having unauthorized custody of their children. It was raised to that level in the courts, because the father ultimately murdered the children while they were in his custody. The mother had called the police to report the father had the kids, and the cops did not respond to the complaint.
This is not an example of police being compelled (or not) to protect citizens. It was related to how "property" is defined, with respect to restraining orders and what obligations police have to arrest a violator of a restraining order.
I think we are looking for examples of law where an officer of the law was found not liable for protecting a citizen that was in imminent and clear danger by the suspect they were engaged with. I assert no such case exists, because police are indeed compelled to protect citizens that are in reasonably clear, current or potential, danger.