3

So, the second season of Daredevil came out today, and internet lowlife that I am I'm already a few episodes in.

A pivotal part of the plot involves a criminal who police are well aware would almost certainly be killed (by a maniac they're currently investigating), who is willing to testify against plenty of people to qualify for witness protection. However, they make his witness protection status conditional upon wearing a wire and being directly involved in a sting, which would expose him to further personal bodily risk.

Since that amounts to extortion, it doesn't feel like it should be legal to do. They're forcing someone to put themselves in harm's way under threat of (almost certain) execution by a third party.

...However, I know that, for various reasons, the law often violently conflicts with what's ethically justifiable, so I'm curious whether that's actually something police can do.

Can police make their protection dependent upon direct involvement in a sting operation? I recognize that there's a difference between witness protection and regular police protection, and am curious how the above applies in each case. Within the context of the show, it's implied that both witness protection and regular police protection would be denied if the witness were to decline to participate. In case it's relevant, the show takes place in New York state.

And yes, I know that TV represents law inaccurately all the time. Don't worry; this isn't the first of a long list of TV-related questions. In my defense, when this question occurred to me, it really was Friday in Iceland.

Parthian Shot
  • 697
  • 1
  • 4
  • 12

3 Answers3

9

Police have no duty to protect

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

It seems from a quick reading of the article that Colorado law had tried to create such a duty, but SCOTUS decided that it either didn't, or couldn't.

dsolimano
  • 950
  • 9
  • 21
1

Police has no duty to protect any specific individual.

This is also known as the "Public Duty Doctrine" and enshrined in many cases. The idea behind that is, that the agency has the duty to serve the public at large and not any particular individual, which is part of the public.

Held: Respondents' [Winnebago County Department of Social Services] failure to provide petitioner [DeShaney] with adequate protection against his father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 489 U. S. 194-203.

Held: Respondent [Gonzales] did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6–19.

However, it is well settled that absent a special relationship, discretionary governmental functions such as the provision of police protection are immune from tort liability (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 [2011]; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255 [1987]; Kircher v City of Jamestown, 74 NY2d 25 1 [1989] Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667 [1984]). Despite even very sympathetic facts, public policy demands that a damaged plaintiff be able to identify the duty owed specifically to him or her, not a general duty to society at large (see Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95 [2000]; Johnson v Jamaica Hosp., 62 NY2d 523,527 [1984]; Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [1928]). [...] Even giving Mr. Lozito every favorable inference (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1987]), this court nonetheless is bound to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiffs have failed to allege a prima facie case of negligence as these facts do not establish a special relationship.

Unless you can show that you had a special relationship, you are not owed special protection and police is immune from suit.

Trish
  • 50,532
  • 3
  • 101
  • 209
-1

First the easy one, regular police protection — the police are under no obligation to protect random citizens regardless off how endangered they may be and why. They can neither accept nor solicit bribes to do their job, but are generally otherwise free to decide when and what to do. “Gimme a nickel and I’ll protect you” is bribery and a crime, “Sober up and I’ll protect you” isn’t. Wearing a wire isn’t bribery, and in fact may be the mechanism whereby they provide at least some of the protection.

Secondly there is protective custody, this is fairly straight — if you are in custody, the custodians have to provide protection. And while protective custody isn’t an arrest, it is certainly a detention that restricts ones actions and ability to make decision on how best to keep safe.

Finally, there is the witness protection which would be a bit different, and more tricky. Local cops don’t get to decide if you get into the program although their cooperation or advocacy may be critical to whether you do or not. Once in the program, it is unlikely they would have any duty to protect.

I don’t know of any case regarding the Marshals and whether they would have a legal obligation to do anything. I can certainly seeing them having such an obligation, but as I said don’t know of any cases on point and the decision could be very fact dependent. It may also depend in part on the language of the authorizing legislation.

jmoreno
  • 2,389
  • 1
  • 11
  • 17