LEOs not for protection?

[OULobo]

I remember a thread on this forum where a poster who was a police officer made mention that police were not infact public servents and not required to protect the citizen of their city. This was a little hard to believe, but as it was a tangent to the original conversation I didn't persue it. Recently I was reading a publication that mentioned this same statment and quoted from an actual court case. The publication is unabashedly politically bias so I won't go into the subject of the article, but the court case is a direct quote so it is fairly unbiased. the quote says,

"a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." This is in the finding of the D.C. Superior Court in 1978 Warren v. D.C.

If this is true, then what are the specific duties of the police?
To all the police officers that frequent this forum, what is your take on this?

I can state the souce of this quote, it's context if needed.

 

[Tgace]

"The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community"

It basically states that people are responsible for their own individual protection. Probably stemmed from a case where a person was killed in a street crime and a lawsuit was filed saying the police failed in their duty to protect him/her. Thats just a wild guess but it wouldnt suprise me.

 

[wisdomstrikes]

This post caught my interests. By law police are required to protect individuals if they are present. I would have to look more into the breifs to understand the courts ruling, But my guess would be that if the police are not able to get to a crime before someone is injured than that could not be held against them. If a police officer shoots a victim and does not provide what ever life sustaing aide they can, they can be criminaly charged if the victim is killed.
I hope more people get in on this one.
-WISDOMSTRIKES

 

[Tgace]

This post caught my interests. By law police are required to protect individuals if they are present. I would have to look more into the breifs to understand the courts ruling, But my guess would be that if the police are not able to get to a crime before someone is injured than that could not be held against them. If a police officer shoots a victim and does not provide what ever life sustaing aide they can, they can be criminaly charged if the victim is killed.
I hope more people get in on this one.
-WISDOMSTRIKES

Actually, police as well as individuals are never mandated "by law" to use force against anybody. Article 35 of the New York State penal law (my state) only states when force is justified, it never states force SHALL or MUST be used in any circumstance. Failure to protect an individual may result in a civil suit, but Ive never seen anybody charged, LEO/or CIV, for not using force. What "law" are you referring to?

 

[OULobo]

I think I can give a little insight on why the ruling happened by giving some of the case facts. This is paraphrasing

"March 16, 1975; A townhouse occupied by three resident females was broken into and one of the females was attacked in her sleep. She was repeatedly beat, raped and sodomized. During her attack the other two residents were awakend, became aware of the attack and called the police at 6:45am. They were assured help was on the way. They then crawled to the roof for safety. They watched a cruiser approach, pass by, go down an alley and then proceed away. They returned inside and called the police again. This time hearing no more camotion downstairs, they ventured to the downstairs area and were confronted and attacked. The police never responded a second time and the women were repeatedly beaten and raped for 14 hours. The three women sued the police department. Essentially to cover the department in this case and future cases the court issued the said ruling."

So my questions are:

What is the difference between the public at large and the individual citizen?

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of concealed weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety?

 

[Tgace]

From the footnotes of said case....




Plaintiffs have also construed the issues in this case as giving rise to "negligent performance of police duties." In an attempt to avoid the overwhelming case law barring private suits over negligent omissions in the performance of police duties, plaintiffs seek to bring this action within the orbit of cases allowing recovery for injuries caused by negligent acts of police officers in the performance of their official duties. The cases cited by plaintiffs include the negligent handling of a police dog, negligent operation of a police vehicle, and the negligent use of a police weapon. Such cases involve acts of affirmative negligence, for which anyone - police or civilian - would be liable: negligent handling of an attack dog, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and negligent use of a firearm. Those acts of ordinary negligence do not change in character because they happen to have been committed by a police officer in the course of his duties. However, the allegations of negligence in the present case derive solely from defendants' status as police employees and from plaintiffs' contention that defendants failed to do what reasonably prudent police employees would have done in similar circumstances. The difference is between ordinary negligence on the one hand and a novel sort of professional malpractice on the other. A person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large. The public duty concept has drawn some criticism for purportedly creating the rule that: "'Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'" Riss v. City of New York, supra at 585, 293 N.Y.S.2d at 901, 240 N.E.2d at 862 (Keating, J., dissenting). A duty owed to the public, however, is no less enforceable because it is owed to "everybody." Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rights - both formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-121.

The absence of a duty specifically enforceable by individual members of the community is not peculiar to public police services. Our representative form of government is replete with duties owed to everyone in their capacity as citizens but not enforceable by anyone in his capacity as an individual. Through its representatives, the public creates community service; through its representatives, the public establishes the standards which it demands of its employees in carrying out those services and through its representatives, the public can most effectively enforce adherence to those standards of competence. As members of the general public, individuals forego any direct control over the conduct of public employees in the same manner that such individuals avoid any direct responsibility for compensating public employees.

Plaintiffs in this action would have the Court and a jury of twelve additional community representatives join in the responsibility of judging the adequacy of a public employee's performance in office. Plaintiffs' proposition would lead to results which the Massengill Court aptly described as "staggering." Massengill v. Yuma County, supra at 523, 456 P.2d at 381. In this case plaintiffs ask the Court and jury to arrogate to themselves the power to determine, for example, whether defendant Officer Thompson acted in a manner consistent with good police practice when he volunteered to stake out a suspect's house rather than volunteering to report to the crime scene. Consistent with this contention then, should a Court and jury also undertake to sift through clues known to the police in order to determine whether a criminal could reasonably have been apprehended before committing a second crime? Should a Court also be empowered to evaluate, in the context of a tort action, the handling of a major fire and determine whether the hoses were properly placed and the firemen correctly allocated? Might a Court also properly entertain a tort claim over a school teacher's ability to teach seventh grade English or over a postman's failure to deliver promptly an important piece of mail?

Establishment by the Court of a new, privately enforceable duty to use reasonable diligence in the performance of public functions would not likely improve services rendered to the public. The creation of direct, personal accountability between each government employee and every member of the community would effectively bring the business of government to a speedy halt, "would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible in the unflinching discharge of their duties,"[fn4a] and dispatch a new generation of litigants to the courthouse over grievances real and imagined. An enormous amount of public time and money would be consumed in litigation of private claims rather than in bettering the inadequate service which draws the complaints. Unable to pass the risk of litigation costs on to their "clients," prudent public employees would choose to leave public service. Although recognizing the obligation of public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately, the law property does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages. Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted and accordingly, the action is dismissed as to all defendants.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

 

[OULobo]

While I thank you for the posting, I'm not very fluent in legalese. This is 2 pages of double talk and circle speak. It's like decyphering hyroglyphs. I get about 5 or 6 phrases and they don't really seem to tie together well. HELP!

 

[Tgace]

Read this part first....

The cases cited by plaintiffs include the negligent handling of a police dog, negligent operation of a police vehicle, and the negligent use of a police weapon. Such cases involve acts of affirmative negligence, for which anyone - police or civilian - would be liable: negligent handling of an attack dog, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and negligent use of a firearm. Those acts of ordinary negligence do not change in character because they happen to have been committed by a police officer in the course of his duties. However, the allegations of negligence in the present case derive solely from defendants' status as police employees and from plaintiffs' contention that defendants failed to do what reasonably prudent police employees would have done in similar circumstances. The difference is between ordinary negligence on the one hand and a novel sort of professional malpractice on the other. A person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.

 

[Tgace]

Boiled down, I have a duty to "protect property", i.e. prevent/catch thieves. I owe that duty to the public. If you just had your wallet stolen and are attempting to wave me down and I look at you and pass by to go to a robbery in progress call....you cant sue me for failure to do my duty to you individually. (stupid-simple I know but the easiest way I can think of to illustrate the point)

 

[OULobo]

Okay, but why do these ladies get no satisfaction when the police were called and arrived, but didn't follow up? Does this mean that a rape or assault is not covered under what the police are responsible for, but if she said that they were being robbed also, then the police would've been required to intervene and would be held liable.

 

[arnisador]

Okay, but why do these ladies get no satisfaction when the police were called and arrived, but didn't follow up? Does this mean that a rape or assault is not covered under what the police are responsible for

It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., as an individual, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.

In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.

If negligent performance of duties is the issue, administrative punishment may be best. The dept., with civilian oversight, knows best if the officers followed procedure even though this one time it had an unfortunate and unintended outcome, or if there were more emergencies than officers to handle them. If the dept. doesn't act responsibly, vote out the mayor and get a new chief in there.

I have to say, the decision seems appropriate to me, as hard as it is to say that in the light of a terrible case like this. If you don't protect govt. employees from being sued as individuals in most cases, they'll be sued out of work in no time.

 

[Cryozombie]

All it tells me is "protect yourself" at any cost.

An Intruder recently attempted to enter my home. I called the police. They showed up after the fact and basicaly told me, "No one Tried to break in, if they had, they would have." Despite my description of the individual, who I saw when i looked out the window, and the location the person fled to after I scared them off... they were unwilling to pursue it further.

The lesson I learned that day is do not rely on law enforcement personell for assistance, they are nothing more than "Revenue Generators" for the state.

Maybe this is harsh, but it's what I feel. The cops complain "no one likes us until they need us" but maybe they should ask themselves why... I should have just killed that POS instead of expecting the cops to arrest him. That MIGHT have saved someone else the trouble, since LE was unwilling.

 

[Disco]

This is but a small portion of the quicksand that is our judicial system. The system is very complex with many ancillary venues. But it can be made simplistic. Remember who dictates the rules....lawyers, and the bottom line is.......Money! There are contributing factors also. I know some people won't like this, but non-the-less their there. They are demographics, educational status, monitory status, ethnic relations, employment category and notoriety.

Governmental entities first rule of thumb is, to protect.......thyself. But, there have been instances, when the above factors played the game with a different outcome. Police pursuits are an ideal example. We have all heard of litigations that were not honored and some that were. No double talk, the above factors came into play.

The police are a reactionary agency. They can only interseed during or after the act occured. Even here, under the law there are exceptions, but they must fall into certain criteria.

Bottom line here is.........Take care of number one. Do what you must do to survive and protect your loved ones. If you should ever find yourself faced with trying to bring litigation against the police or a governmental agency, find a lawyer that will work on a percentage basis. He has to win the case to get paid, so his interests are your interests.

 

[8253]

Uh oh cop bashing page. Bad

 

[Tgace]

It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., as an individual, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.

In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.

If negligent performance of duties is the issue, administrative punishment may be best. The dept., with civilian oversight, knows best if the officers followed procedure even though this one time it had an unfortunate and unintended outcome, or if there were more emergencies than officers to handle them. If the dept. doesn't act responsibly, vote out the mayor and get a new chief in there.

I have to say, the decision seems appropriate to me, as hard as it is to say that in the light of a terrible case like this. If you don't protect govt. employees from being sued as individuals in most cases, they'll be sued out of work in no time.

Agreed.

 

[OULobo]

So what this comes down to is city protecting it's own butt. The medical industry doesn't have the benefit of saying that "We can't be sued because we are the police or we are a city protective service." and as such they are sued constantly for a reasonable standard of care. Why can't the police be held to the same standard.

I'm not preaching that we sue individual officers, just that certain courses of action be mandatory in situations, and if they are not adheared to, the consequences be paid, but by the person who didn't follow those mandatory courses, not the victim of the crime. How can the courts justify a drive by with no further investigation, after two calls were placed directly reporting a violent crime. It seems they justify it by being scared to let the police be accountable for it's (lack of) action. The average civilian believes that the police have a duty to protect the individual citizen as much as the property of the city. This sounds like some kind of BS safety net to protect the police when they F-up.

I understand and respect the fact that most officers have the integrety and personal conviction to take it upon themselves to take action in situations where the law seems not to require it and I respect them greatly for it, but as having the powers granted to them they should also have the responsibilities that go with those powers and the accountability for their actions and just as importantly lack thereof. If the police are just security for public facilities then why do they have police powers over the rest of the citizenry regardless of location. If they are not responsible for our protection and instead state that it is our own responsibility to protect ourselves, how can they justify tying ourhands with weapons laws or in any way limiting our abilities of self-protection. I hope this doesn't sound radical or anti-police, it's really just a progression of logic.

Again:

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of carrying weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety, and therefore the need for force multipliers by the less physically capable?

 

[OULobo]

It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., as an individual, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.

Letting the administration decide if the job was performed properly leaves the system open for corruption and "good old boy" networks. I don't support suing the individual, but the system (city) as a whole, as they are responsible for administration of the police. I think that, in the 9-11 case, Bush isn't liable because he isn't soley responsible. The Federal government or at least executive branch however is responsible. Now the matter of foreseeability is an issue for the people (not the court, ie judge) to decide.

In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.

I believe that is what they did, as, and I could be wrong here, you have to sue the city if you are accusing the police. The courts see them as the same. The case was Warren v. D.C.

If negligent performance of duties is the issue, administrative punishment may be best. The dept., with civilian oversight, knows best if the officers followed procedure even though this one time it had an unfortunate and unintended outcome, or if there were more emergencies than officers to handle them. If the dept. doesn't act responsibly, vote out the mayor and get a new chief in there.

I have to say, the decision seems appropriate to me, as hard as it is to say that in the light of a terrible case like this. If you don't protect govt. employees from being sued as individuals in most cases, they'll be sued out of work in no time.

I agree about the protection of individuals, but this gives immunity to the city as a whole for the inactions of police in dangerous (albeit to the individual) situations.

This is a tangent of huge proportions, but if this country federalized health care, would then all the doctors be immune to malpractice as doctors wouldn't be liable for inaction under the same premise of immunity for municiple services.

 

[Tgace]

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Yes


Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

no

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of carrying weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety, and therefore the need for force multipliers by the less physically capable?

Its always been the case...you wont find many "anti-gun" patrol officers...supervision is another matter.

 

[Tgace]

I dont know all the details of this particular case but heres a scenario...

Women are calling for help. they are scared, whispering and not being very clear...

Dispatch puts the call out as "emergency call hang-up...caller not understandable." (thats all patrol gets...happens often)

Patrol passes house to observe, look for get away cars etc....turns around and parks. They knock..no answer...check windows...all dark.

Now what do you do...this is in 1975, before computers+911 systems...they never got a call back number...with what you got do you kick the door??

Now Im not saying that this was the case here but it is a situation Ive had often....with no further info or additional calls, few supervisors will be willing to allow forced entry.

a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Sounds like dispatch should have had their pee pee's slapped huh??

What courses of action do you think should be "manditory"?

Medical malpractice is different in that doctors have people come to them, the doctor agrees to treat them. A doctor isnt expected to patrol the streets and try to find sick people and then be liable if he fails to find said person and he dies.