The Evolving Role of Police: Protect and Serve or Harass and Intimidate?

During the early years of law enforcement, the doctrine of “to protect and serve” was widely hailed as a guiding principle. However, as the legal and societal landscape has evolved, this mantra has been under scrutiny. Recent cases and scholarly opinions suggest that police no longer have an inherent duty to protect citizens. This article delves into the current role of police and challenges the traditional notion that they are obligation bound to safeguard public safety.

Legal Obligations and the Mantra of Protection

According to Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law, the Constitution and state laws do not impose a general duty on police officers to protect individuals from harm. In a Colorado Supreme Court case, it was ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect and defend the public. They merely enforce laws, one of the many responsibilities they are mandated to carry out.

Proactive vs. Reactive Nature of Law Enforcement

Law enforcement is inherently reactive rather than proactive. The role of a police officer is to respond to incidents, not to predict and prevent them. This is a stark contrast to the Fire Department, an organization that is designed to prevent and extinguish fires. While the latter can work to mitigate the spread of fires, the police have no such proactive tools to prevent criminal activities from occurring.

The 99.9% rule holds that when law enforcement arrives, the situation is usually already resolved. However, the 0.1% chance of encountering a life-threatening scenario underscores the need for officers to be well-equipped and trained. Despite this, their role in society has lessened, with many viewing them as mere revenue generators rather than protectors of the public.

Case Laws and Legal Interpretations

Key court cases reflect the evolving understanding of police duties. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, the Supreme Court ruled that the failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate a child's right to liberty under the 14th Amendment. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court stated that the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, and its police department cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order. These rulings highlight that while police may have a duty to protect citizens, this duty does not extend to a financial or legal liability for failing to do so.

Conclusion: Are Police Still Required to Protect and Defend Citizens?

While the traditional role of “to protect and serve” still resonates in police missions, modern interpretations suggest a narrower scope of responsibility. Police are no longer legally obligated to protect individual citizens unless they are in agency custody. As a result, the public and legal systems must adapt to these changes, recognizing law enforcement's evolving role in society.