4 ms·

> Nevertheless the police are required to make best effort to arrest whoever the law requires them to. Where is there such a requirement and how is it implemen

by anamax 14y ago

> Nevertheless the police are required to make best effort to arrest whoever the law requires them to. Where is there such a requirement and how is it implemented? I ask because there are several US Supreme Court cases that say the exact opposite, that police are not obliged to act except in some circumstances that almost never come up and aren't relevant here. (Basically, if US police make certain specific promises to specific people in specific situations, they can be held liable for failing to keep those promises. Otherwise, they have no obligation to act, or even to not run away. In practice, they don't make those promises.) These cases involve someone trying to sue police for failure to act. In every case, they lost. The supremes have said that there are conditions under which failure to act by police is actionable but they never seem to be satisfied. In many US jurisdiction, this "no duty" is statutory as well. It actually makes quite a bit of sense. If they have a duty, that can keep them from doing something else that we might find more important. The downside is that they can decide to do something else that is less important (to us).

anamax 14y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=... discusses a case involving a court order that said "you shall arrest or issue a warrant for the arrest" and a CO law that mandates arrest for violating protective orders. It's a followon to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales which had a similar fact pattern. There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County which doesn't involve police. That decision says that it isn't just police who have no duty to act. I don't know of any US, state, or local govt employess who have a duty to act, with a minor exception for teachers, who have an obligation to report suspected child abuse in certain circumstances. This isn't new - see South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) Lower courts have typically come down the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia is the classic, often cited case. Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995). Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998). Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) My personal favorite is Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958) . The Riss dissent argued "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." However, that dissent is wrong as a matter of law. There's nothing unconstitutional about govt policies that impose a Catch-22 on law-abiding people.

by anamax 14y ago

anamax 14y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=... discusses a case involving a court order that said "you shall arrest or issue a warrant for the arrest" and a CO law that mandates arrest for violating protective orders. It's a followon to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales which had a similar fact pattern. There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County which doesn't involve police. That decision says that it isn't just police who have no duty to act. I don't know of any US, state, or local govt employess who have a duty to act, with a minor exception for teachers, who have an obligation to report suspected child abuse in certain circumstances. This isn't new - see South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) Lower courts have typically come down the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia is the classic, often cited case. Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995). Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998). Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) My personal favorite is Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958) . The Riss dissent argued "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." However, that dissent is wrong as a matter of law. There's nothing unconstitutional about govt policies that impose a Catch-22 on law-abiding people.