The 7th Circuit issued an opinion today (pdf) that provides a nice review of some general principles involving an individual’s constitutional right (or lack thereof) to government protection.
Generally speaking, a citizen does not have a right to government protection; at least not one that’s compensable if it’s violated. In Christine Sandage v. Vanderburgh County, the plaintiff was murdered by a man who was out of jail on work release. Prior to her murder, the plaintiff had complained that the eventual murderer was harassing her. The complaint basically alleged that, by failing to act on the complaint of harassment by revoking the murderer’s work release privileges, the county had violated the plaintiff’s rights by depriving her of her life without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment. The district court dismissed the case on a 12(b)(6) motion which means, even assuming the facts alleged in the complaint are all true, the complaint fails to state a claim recognized under the law. In other words, even assuming that the county’s failure to act to lock this guy up was reckless, the plaintiff (or her estate, technically) was not entitled to be paid by the county for violation of her constitutional rights.
The court pointed out that there is a distinction that is sometimes compensable where the government has acted in a way that deprives you of the ability to care for yourself. For example, if the government recklessly fails to protect you or provide reasonable medical care while you’re in jail, that can result in a constitutional claim.
How can the State possibly protect any particular individual?
Their security organizations spend most of their time trolling for criminals along public rights of way. Way too much bother to have to go out looking for trouble, when most of it (according to them) drives right by (the Dunkin’ Donut shop).
Note: Bitter sarcasm due to touchy subject, the court date of which is (finally!!!!!!!) nearing. After court date, win or lose (I hope), frustration factor should subside when subject of “police” is brought up. Too bad, because many police are a credit to society. But, for the few who aren’t – BOO!
In my younger days, I used to have a strong anti-police bias. Now, I’ve been representing the Sheriff’s Department for quite a while and know that I have a strong pro-police bias.
Seems like it’s tough to have an emotionally neutral reaction to the police. Maybe it’s just me.
OK, so what would the woman’s proper course of action have been? If a person who they are releasing is threatening you, and they release anyway, what is your recourse as a potential victim? Go kill the person preemptively? Never sleep? Move? Endeavor to be understanding when the predictable comes to pass? Turn the other dead cheek?
It seems to me that work release is a privilege that should be reserved for those who aren’t making threats against others. If those in charge can’t hold to a guideline like that, they should be liable in some way for not doing their jobs better.
I don’t know what her best course of action would have been; just that she (or her estate) doesn’t get paid because the government didn’t stop her from getting killed. At least not as a federal constitutional issue.
I suppose she could have hired a body guard and then maybe have a civil claim against the body guard company if they didn’t successfully protect her. Obviously, her estate has a civil claim against the (presumably worthless) murderer’s estate.
She could have learned to defend herself. With proper training, a handgun could have allowed her to defend herself.
The laws in this state allow for personal protection permits, so the law allowed her to defend herself.
It seems that the police exist to serve justice after the fact, and the only prevention function they serve is as a deterrent. If their job is to proactively protect, I think we’d all be a little upset about how much that would invade our privacy and freedom.
It’s not their duty to proactively protect you from random strangers. It should be their duty to protect you from convicts who are in their custody.