The well-known phrase “To Protect And Serve” is deeply ingrained in the public consciousness as the mission statement of police departments across the United States. Originating with the Los Angeles Police Department, this motto suggests a fundamental obligation of law enforcement to safeguard citizens. However, a series of landmark court decisions have revealed a starkly different legal reality, one that challenges the very essence of this popular phrase. In fact, the courts have consistently affirmed that police forces have no legal duty to protect individual citizens unless specific circumstances are met.
This revelation stems from the precedent-setting case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981). In this case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals explicitly stated that “a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” This ruling emerged from a case where police failed to protect three women during a home invasion. The court reasoned that without a “special relationship” between the police and an individual, no legal duty of protection exists. Such a special relationship, as defined by Warren v. District of Columbia, typically arises when an individual is in police custody. A duty can also be established if the police undertake actions where it is foreseeable that a citizen would rely on their performance, such as assuring someone that “help is on the way.” The Warren decision effectively limited the scope of police responsibility for protection to specific scenarios, rather than a general obligation to the community at large.
The principle established in Warren has been consistently reinforced in subsequent legal challenges. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) further solidified this interpretation. The Supreme Court in DeShaney addressed a case where social services were accused of failing to protect a child from parental abuse. The court declared that government agencies are not obligated under the Due Process Clause to “protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” Expanding on this, the court clarified that the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to prevent harm from non-state actors. Because the abused child in DeShaney was in the custody of his father, a private individual, the state social services agency was deemed to have no legal duty to protect him from that private actor. This decision firmly established that the government’s duty to protect does not extend beyond the confines of state custody. Unless an individual is within the state’s control, such as in police custody, law enforcement is not legally mandated to prevent harm.
The legal stance that police are not obligated to “protect and serve” was further cemented in the highly publicized case Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). Jessica Gonzales sued a police department after her husband, against whom she had a restraining order, violated that order and tragically murdered their three children. Despite multiple calls for help from Gonzales, police officers did not intervene to enforce the restraining order. The Supreme Court, referencing the precedent set in DeShaney, upheld that state actors, including police departments, have no legally enforceable duty to protect individuals.
Even in contemporary cases, the courts have continued to adhere to these precedents. Following the tragic Parkland school shooting in 2018, students sued the local police department for failing to protect them. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit, citing the DeShaney ruling and stating that for a duty to protect to exist, students would need to be considered in state custody. As schoolchildren are not in a custodial relationship with the state, no legal obligation to protect them was found. These repeated affirmations in the courts reveal a significant divergence between the public perception fostered by the motto “To Protect and Serve” and the actual legal obligations of police departments. While the phrase evokes a sense of guaranteed safety and police responsibility, the legal reality is that, outside of specific circumstances like custody or direct undertakings of assistance, law enforcement agencies are not legally bound to protect individual citizens from harm. This understanding is crucial for public awareness and for shaping realistic expectations of police roles and responsibilities within communities.
References
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 DC: Court of Appeals 1981. ↩
[2] Ibid. ↩
[3] Ibid. ↩
[4] Ibid. ↩
[5] Ibid. ↩
[6] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). ↩
[7] Ibid. ↩
[8] Ibid. ↩
[9] Ibid. ↩
[10] Ibid. ↩
[11] Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005). ↩
[12] Ibid. ↩
[13] L.S. v. Peterson, Case No. 18-cv-61577-BLOOM/Valle, 12 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2018). ↩
