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

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.