When the Police Duty to Protect Fails: Police Brutality

Doctrines of Duty Care Failure Protecting Laws on Vehicular Pursuits and Police Brutality

Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code, or the federal civil rights statute, officials of the state and local governments may be sued in they violate an individual's constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment (Batterton, 2015; Dean, 1998; Rutledge, 2010). This amendment explicitly protects an individual from unreasonable arrest and seizure. It is often invoked when a police officer makes the unreasonable arrest or seizure. The complainant may take this course of action, imploring the Fifth and 14th amendments due process clause under one of two doctrines, namely the special relationship doctrine and the state-created doctrine (Batterton, Dean, Rutledge).

The Special Relationship Liability Doctrine

Under this doctrine, the state takes control of a person by way of an affirmative duty to protect him (Batterton, 2015; Dean, 1998; Rutledge, 2010). Examples of recipients of this protection are prisoners and involuntary controlled mental patients. Custody over such a person entails responsibility to take reasonable measures to extend appropriate care to him or her and protection from all probable risks. This doctrine is often invoked against correction officials and local police when making arrests or taking custody. If a police officer, for example, arrests a probable violator and takes him inside the patrol car but fails to provide him with a seat belt, the police officer and his agency can be sued if the arrested person incurs injuries in transport. The police officer is required to protect him and thus violates his affirmative duty. It is a violation of due process (Batterton, Dean, Rutledge).

State-Created Danger Liability Doctrine

This is the more commonly invoked doctrine of the two. It may be applicable if a person who is not in police custody but incurs some injury or dies from a hazard or as the result of an act performed by the police officer or the failure to perform a protective act. While the failure to protect a person against private harm does not generally breaches the constitutional guarantee of due process, a violation can occur when the action performed affirmatively puts the person in a situation of danger. In that situation, the police or state action exposes or creates a situation of danger, which he or she would otherwise not confront if it were not for the police or state action. Simply stated, if the police or state action puts the person in a greater situation of danger, he becomes involved in that incident. It is worse than not intervening at all. The police officer can be liable to suit for creating a greater danger for the person (Batterton, Dean, Rutledge).

In Vehicular Pursuits Liability

The first source is the federal constitutional law, such as the fourth and 14th amendments (Batterton, 2015). Examples are a police officer's intentional ramming or injuring the person or suspect under the Fourth Amendment and injury to a third party or on the suspect himself. Example is the suspect's crashing his vehicle or the officer doing so and injuring a third party. The second source is state law, statute or case law concerning negligence or the use of government vehicles (Batterton).