The state generally does not have a duty to protect citizens from private harms under the 14th Amendment. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). The duty to preserve life is triggered when the state takes somebody into their custody.
When the state takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and welfare. Thus, 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 is imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. Id. In Deshaney, for example, the state owed no duty to a child whose abuse it was investigating to protect him from being beaten by his father, even though a special relationship existed between the child and the state.
While state actors are generally only liable for their own acts and not for private harms, state actors may be liable under § 1983 for private harms if a special relationship exists under which the state assumes sufficient control over the plaintiff to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection, or if the state created the danger that harmed the plaintiff. Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995).
If you think the police must protect you from being harmed, think again. Many people encounter situations with friends or family members in which they become concerned for their safety and call police to check up on them. The police do not have an obligation to ensure a person’s safety or security, absent probable cause to make an arrest or place a person in protective custody. Koven v. Hammond, 2012 WL 1188464 (D. Neb. 2012).
The state generally does not have a duty to protect citizens from private harms under the 14th Amendment. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). The duty to preserve life is triggered when the state takes somebody into their custody.
When the state takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and welfare. Thus, 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 is imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. Id. In Deshaney, for example, the state owed no duty to a child whose abuse it was investigating to protect him from being beaten by his father, even though a special relationship existed between the child and the state.
While state actors are generally only liable for their own acts and not for private harms, state actors may be liable under § 1983 for private harms if a special relationship exists under which the state assumes sufficient control over the plaintiff to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection, or if the state created the danger that harmed the plaintiff. Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995).
If you think the police must protect you from being harmed, think again. Many people encounter situations with friends or family members in which they become concerned for their safety and call police to check up on them. The police do not have an obligation to ensure a person’s safety or security, absent probable cause to make an arrest or place a person in protective custody. Koven v. Hammond, 2012 WL 1188464 (D. Neb. 2012).