Time: Tue Dec 16 05:19:17 1997 To: ewolfe@involved.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: local law enforcement has no duty to protect a particular person Cc: Bcc: sls References: <34962267.6BB0@involved.com> Thanks, Ed! At 01:27 AM 12/16/97 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, > >I found the cites I was looking for. > >If you ever need 'em, here they are: > >In 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had >no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to >enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 >(1856)]. > >And more recently: > >In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held >that: > >"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state >against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the >state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does >not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we >suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a >charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; >it does not require the federal government or the state to provide >services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and >order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, >686F.2d 616 (1882) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, >477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)]. > Objection. The Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified! /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail