If police see a known felon raping a woman in a public park what are they LEGALLY required to do?
So, lets say two cops see a known felon chase down a woman, rip her cloths off, and start raping her. She looks at the police and begs for help. Are they LEGALLY required to do anything? If they were to pull out some lawn chairs, pop some popcorn and watch the show, would they be guilty of any crime? Could they successfully be sued in civil court? If they couldn't be successfully sued as individuals, could the department or city be successfully sued?
Would it be different if it was a 4 year old child who was being raped?
Adam2013-04-03T17:37:16Z
Favorite Answer
In Warren vs District of Columbia, there was a house with 2 adults in the bottom floor and 1 adult plus a 4 year old child in the top floor. Burglars kicked down the back door and went in and started raping the adult and sodomizing the child. Hearing the screams the house-mates hid and called 911 asking for assistance. Cops came and knocked on the front door...which of course the burglars didn't go and open. Police left. The 2 adults called 911 again. 911 operator assured them that cops were on their way...and then did nothing (did not forward call to the cops). Upstairs residents eventually heard the screaming stop and thought the cops had come. WRONG. Burglars got ahold of the two women upstairs too. The burglars continued to rape and sodomize the 3 woman and the 4 year old child for 14 hours until they had their fill and left.
Warren sued saying that #1 even thought the initial 911 attack was about a house being invaded and someone screaming for help while being raped, it was passed off to police as a simple possible burglary. #2 even in the case of just 'possible burglary' calls police policy was to check all entrances and try and look into the windows to see what was going on, and this policy was not followed by the officers #3 Second 911 call, no cops were dispatched as promised.
"The Court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
Similarly, Deshaney v Winnebago: A kid was found abused by the police and by a hospital. Child was left in custody of parent. Over the next year the child was checked on 5 times and reported that there was suspicion of abuse. The child went to the hospital a second time and they for a second time reported suspicion of abuse. DSS did nothing. Shortly after that the child was beaten into a life threatening coma
Court found that even if the authorities knew for an absolute fact that the kid was being abused, they had zero legal duty to protect...unless the kid was actually in DSS custody. ""The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty"
Again this is the same as Warren v DC when only those in a 'special relationship' (i.e. in custody) have any right to protection.
Also check out Castle Rock vs Gonzales. A lady divorced her abusive husband. She got a restraining order. Husband came and took the kids. Mom called the cops 5 times that night and early morning to report it. Husband shot the 3 daughters in the head and afterward drove to the police station and started shooting at it. The cops shot him then found the dead bodies in the car. Husband died of his wounds.
Court found that even though there was a restraining order, the police were not obliged to enforce it...and even if they were they'd not be liable for failing to protect anyone not in their custody. "The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause."
Same with Hartzler v. City of San Jose where a woman had an abusive partner and had a restraining order. 20 times she called in for him violating it. 1 time only was he arrested. He called her and told her he was on his way to kill her. She called the cops, they told her to 'call us when he actually attacks you'. Well he came over, kicked her door down and started stabbing her. Between the time when her door was kicked down and him starting to stab her, she failed to call the cops. Courts said...again...no duty to protect exists.