# Code Adam and storekeeper's privilege **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 18, 2018, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308 "2018-12-18T03:35:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/121 "2018-12-21T00:24:10Z")
Oh, yeah. I assumed Walmart was paying for the service. I volunteer at ballgames and our group pays for extra auxiliary sheriff’s deputies to hang close to the concessions. The school has a contract with the city Police dept.for events and games. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/122 "2018-12-21T00:52:04Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > You’re not going to like the [answer.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkland-shooting-judge-school-cops-no-duty-protect-kids/2360683002/) > > The primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function. > > EVERYTHING else is secondary. > > And that is a long standing precedent, having been argued all the way to SCOTUS. Which SCOTUS decision says that? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/123 "2018-12-21T00:57:04Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > Shoplifting is such a massive hit to retailers I’m surprised the receipt checks aren’t more commom. This time of year the Wal-Mart I go to has law enforcement at the doors. I guess to have a LE representative to maybe discourage a thief. I encountered this while popping into a busy Walmart before thanksgiving. I was wondering whether the cops would try an enforce the receipt checking. There was a huge queue to check receipts, which was being done by an employee, but the police were hanging out close by. I ignored the receipt checker and just walked out (for all the reasons listed above). No one noticed as the item I purchased was small. Does anyone know if the police will take action in these situations? If I’d have done the same with big trolley of items, and been pointed out by the employees, would the police have stopped me from leaving and asked for proof of purchase? Would they have been legally entitled to do so? (or at least stop me leaving if I refused, which I would not have done. They are entitled to ASK me whatever they feel like.). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/124 "2018-12-21T01:06:53Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Members have to buy you the card. “In general”, anyone can shop there without a membership, with restrictions. But any differences between how I define “in general” and you do don’t affect my argument. “They are allowed to demand your receipt” is no different then what other stores can do, and it’s especially comparable to how they don’t differ from other stores in this regard with the added knowledge that one can shop there without a membership. Yes, they charge $60 for a membership, and there’s a lot you can’t do without a membership. A membership they can revoke if you dont play by their rules. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/125 "2018-12-21T01:18:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, they charge $60 for a membership, and there’s a lot you can’t do without a membership. A lot? I don’t think so. I posted regarding how to get the bulk of benefits without a membership. > [@](#): > > A membership they can revoke if you dont play by their rules. I responded to this already. Similarly, Walmart can ban you from entry if you don’t play by their rules. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/126 "2018-12-21T01:23:32Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > A lot? I don’t think so. I posted regarding how to get the bulk of benefits without a membership. > I responded to this already. Similarly, Walmart can ban you from entry if you don’t play by their rules. Nope, just a few thing you can but outside general merchandise, unless you get a friend to buy you the cards. Walmart can’t take away a $60 card and they dont check upon entering the store, as Costco does. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/127 "2018-12-21T01:32:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Nope, just a few thing you can but outside general merchandise, **unless you get a friend to buy you the cards**. Wow! Do you not know the difference between “can’t do something” and “can’t do something unless…”? You said there’s a lot you can’t do without a membership. I keep posting that you can. One way is to have someone buy you a gift card. > [@](#): > > Walmart can’t take away a $60 card and they dont check upon entering the store, as Costco does. You’re correct on the first part of that statement, incorrect on the second. Tell the checker that you have a gift card, are shopping for liquor or going to the pharmacy, and there’s no check. And it has nothing to do with anything. This: “They are allowed to demand your receipt. Walmart is not.” Is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/128 "2018-12-21T03:12:16Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Does anyone know if the police will take action in these situations? If I’d have done the same with big trolley of items, and been pointed out by the employees, would the police have stopped me from leaving and asked for proof of purchase? Would they have been legally entitled to do so?. The answer to the last question is “no.” The police can not detain you without reasonable suspicion, and not submitting to a checkpoint stop you aren’t required to does not entail reasonable suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/129 "2018-12-21T03:22:51Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Which SCOTUS decision says that? Warren v. District of Columbia for starters. Then the list goes on. The [courts](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) have ruled a mulitple times on this, and refused to take some cases due to it’s precedent. This has been discussed several times on these boards so I’m sure someone will come along post the actual cases. There are a lot of them from SCOTUS on down. Hate to have to blind you with the awful truth but “Serve and Protect” means serve and protect the government entity one is employed by. Officers get told that the first week in the academy. The look on their faces is priceless. You’d think after 2-4 years of criminal justice college they’d have been told that already. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/130 "2018-12-21T03:28:52Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Warren v. District of Columbia for starters. Then the list goes on. > The [courts](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) have ruled a mulitple times on this, and refused to take some cases due to it’s precedent. This has been discussed several times on these boards so I’m sure someone will come along post the actual cases. There are a lot of them from SCOTUS on down. > Hate to have to blind you with the awful truth but “Serve and Protect” means serve and protect the government entity one is employed by. Officers get told that the first week in the academy. The look on their faces is priceless. You’d think after 2-4 years of criminal justice college they’d have been told that already. I’m sad to here that. Further more, you mean it takes 2-4 years to become a cop?? Seems excessive for what they are paid (around here, YMMV) ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/131 "2018-12-21T03:31:53Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > The answer to the last question is “no.” The police can not detain you without reasonable suspicion, and not submitting to a checkpoint stop you aren’t required to does not entail reasonable suspicion. I suspected that to be the case. But it wouldn’t change my actions, if they had got involved I would have definitely shown them my receipt. The set of things a cop is allowed, by the strict definition of the law, to do is very different to what they can in practice get away without repercussions (to them, very bad ones for you). What he’d have done if he’d made be go to the back of the huge receipt checking line I don’t know, but I’d most likely obeyed cursing quietly to myself. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/132 "2018-12-21T03:52:30Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > Further more, you mean it takes 2-4 years to become a cop?? Seems excessive for what they are paid (around here, YMMV) In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain. When I was hired for my first career in 1982 all it took was a high school diploma. Over the years I eventually received my Associates, then Bachelor, then a Masters. The police academy itself is now a minimum of 720 hours (18 weeks). Class A cities like Milwaukee and agencies like State Patrol may have longer academies. I believe theirs are 26 weeks. When I first got hired it was 240 hours. After I retired I took a 2nd career with another agency. My paltry 240 hour certification is grandfathered of course. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/133 "2018-12-21T03:56:58Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain. > > When I was hired for my first career in 1982 all it took was a high school diploma. Over the years I eventually received my Associates, then Bachelor, then a Masters. > > The police academy itself is now a minimum of 720 hours (18 weeks). Class A cities like Milwaukee and agencies like State Patrol may have longer academies. I believe theirs are 26 weeks. > > When I first got hired it was 240 hours. After I retired I took a 2nd career with another agency. My paltry 240 hour certification is grandfathered of course. Well, I have a re-newed respect. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/134 "2018-12-21T04:02:14Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > The primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function. > > EVERYTHING else is secondary. > > And that is a long standing precedent, having been argued all the way to SCOTUS. > [@pkbites](#): > > Warren v. District of Columbia for starters. Warren v. District of Columbia did not conclude that the “primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function.” However, I asked you for a SCOTUS decision. > [@](#): > > The [courts](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) have ruled a mulitple times on this The first sentence of that article: _“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”_ is incorrect. That is, it’s incorrect if it’s to be interpreted to mean all people in all circumstances (which seemed to be the author’s intent) rather than literally “a person” in a specific type of circumstance. In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, “the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order.” It’s a right to sue case. > **[Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)** > > Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. The decision has since become infamous and condemned by several human rights groups. > During divorce proceedings, Jessica Lenahan-Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, ... That’s not a ruling saying “the police don’t have a duty to protect, ever.” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/135 "2018-12-21T04:14:24Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain. Apparently that’s a myth others also believe according to my second cite below. > [@](#): > > What Are The Minimum Requirements for Becoming a Madison Police Officer? > MPD Officers > > Be at least 18 years of age at the time of application per City Ordinance Sec. 62.13(4)(d)Stats. > > High school graduate or possess a G.E.D. High School Equivalency Diploma. > > Possess a current driver’s license and be eligible for a Wisconsin driver’s license. > > Meet our occupational health standard. Go to the comprehensive list of job-related dimensions. > > No felony convictions (unless pardoned by the Governor of the State). Domestic violence convictions are automatic disqualifiers. > > No conviction record or pending charge which substantially relates to the work of a Police Officer. > > In addition, any new officer who does not possess a two-year associate degree or sixty credits from an accredited college at time of hire must meet this standard within five years. [https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/jointeam/applicant.cfm](https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/jointeam/applicant.cfm) > [@](#): > > Myths about Milwaukee Police Hiring > > I have to already have my degree in order to apply. > > You do not need to already have your degree in order to apply to be a Police Officer with the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). State Law does require you to obtain at least 60 college credits or an associate degree from a Wisconsin Technical College System district or its accredited equivalent from another state within 5 years of employment. If you’re starting from scratch that works out to only 12 credits per year. [https://city.milwaukee.gov/fpc/Jobs/Police-Officer/Myths-about-Police-Hiring.htm](https://city.milwaukee.gov/fpc/Jobs/Police-Officer/Myths-about-Police-Hiring.htm) ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/136 "2018-12-21T04:28:50Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Apparently that’s a myth others also believe according to my second cite below. No it’s not a myth. your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules. The state allows some of their academy training to be used as credits. The academies for other agencies that are held at tech colleges can also be used. Per my contact at DOJ the state is changing this to prevent anyone from even applying without the degree. What has been happening is officers have been failing to obtain the degree and then are losing their certification over it. It’s a clusterfuck to the agency when that happens. you will be hard pressed to find an agency that will actually hire anyone without the degree. They simply will not risk it. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That’s not a ruling saying “the police don’t have a duty to protect, ever.” I never said that. But I challenge you to find a case which ruled the police DO have a duty to protect. And my statement about maintaining order so the governmental unit may function stands. It may be an unofficial dirty little secret, but it is it’s primary role whether you like it or not. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/137 "2018-12-21T05:06:59Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Apparently that’s a myth others also believe according to my second cite below. > [@pkbites](#): > > No it’s not a myth. your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules. If that’s true, it still makes your claim wrong, doesn’t it? But it’s not true. Here are the requirements for the Village of Oregon: > [@](#): > > What Are The Minimum Requirements for Becoming a Oregon Police Officer? > > A United States citizen and at least 18 years of age at the time of application per Sec. 62.13(4)(d) Stats. > > High school graduate or possess a G.E.D. High School Equivalency Diploma. > > Possess a current driver’s license and be eligible for a Wisconsin driver’s license. > > No felony convictions (unless pardoned by the Governor of the State). Domestic violence convictions are automatic disqualifiers. > > No conviction record or pending charge which substantially relates to the work of a Police Officer. > > In addition, any new officer who does not possess a two-year associate degree or sixty credits from an accredited college at time of hire must meet this standard within five years. > **[Employment - Village of Oregon  ](https://www.vil.oregon.wi.us/?SEC=654833E1-BFB9-4A76-A4F2-AACDEDF85C6B)** > > Join Our Team > The Oregon Police Department has an authorized staff of 19 sworn officers and 2.5 civilian employees, providing 24-hour police protection and services to the Village of Oregon. The members of our department are dedicated... Same educational requirements in non-class A cities. > [@](#): > > Per my contact at DOJ the state is changing this to prevent anyone from even applying without the degree. What has been happening is officers have been failing to obtain the degree and then are losing their certification over it. It’s a clusterfuck to the agency when that happens. Which if accurate, means they haven’t yet. The two cities I provided cites for are still accepting applications without college credits, let alone a degree. Same for Oregon, WI. > [@](#): > > you will be hard pressed to find an agency that will actually hire anyone without the degree. They simply will not risk it. I doubt that. That sets them up for a lawsuit. Also, you said one can’t even apply. > [@](#): > > I never said that. Really? What **were** you saying when you posted this?: > [@](#): > > Warren v. District of Columbia for starters. Then the list goes on. > The [courts](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) have ruled a mulitple times on this, and refused to take some cases due to it’s precedent. This has been discussed several times on these boards so I’m sure someone will come along post the actual cases. There are a lot of them from SCOTUS on down. > Hate to have to blind you with the awful truth but “Serve and Protect” means serve and protect the government entity one is employed by. Officers get told that the first week in the academy. The look on their faces is priceless. You’d think after 2-4 years of criminal justice college they’d have been told that already. > [@](#): > > And my statement about maintaining order so the governmental unit may function stands. It may be an unofficial dirty little secret, but it is it’s primary role whether you like it or not. Unofficial? You said this (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > The primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function. > > EVERYTHING else is secondary. > > **And that is a long standing precedent, having been argued all the way to SCOTUS.** > [@](#): > > But I challenge you to find a case which ruled the police DO have a duty to protect. I didn’t make that claim; the burden of proof is on you. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/138 "2018-12-21T05:59:26Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I doubt that. That sets them up for a lawsuit. No it doesn’t. An agency can have qualifications in excess of state mandates. Several agencies require transcripts be turned in with the application. Including Racine, Adams, Appleton, Fond du Lac, Greenfield , etc… just to name a few that are currently recruiting. And there are agencies that won’t hire unless the applicant is already certified, which means they either went through the academy with another agency or went through on their own which is possible in this state but rather expensive. If the new requirements don’t go into effect until after the first of the year, then I’m off by 2 weeks. BFD. The courts routinely rule that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals. Who do you think they are here for then? The public mission statement may make you feel all warm and fuzzy, Cupcake, but it’s not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The established role of law enforcement is to maintain order so the governmental unit it serves may continue to function. Sorry if this breaks your heart. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/139 "2018-12-21T06:29:06Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > No it doesn’t. An agency can have qualifications in excess of state mandates. Yes, it does. If the qualifications are in excess, that’s not what was being referred to. If the qualifications are not in excess, which was the case in all my cites and this was your claim: _“you will be hard pressed to find an agency that will actually hire anyone without the degree. They simply will not risk it.”_ then not hiring someone because they don’t have a qualification not necessary by that department’s listed qualifications opens them up to a lawsuit. YOU claimed: _“In Wisconsin one must have either an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice or Police Science or a Bachelor Degree in something else before one can even apply. Those take 2-4 years to obtain.”_ I showed you that wasn’t true. Then you claimed I was wrong, followed by “your cites include 2 class A cities that do have different rules”, which if were true, means I wasn’t wrong. I then showed you it it’s not true that you must have the educational requirements you claimed in non-class A cities, which you conveniently ignored. > [@](#): > > The courts routinely rule that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals. Who do you think they are here for then? The public mission statement may make you feel all warm and fuzzy, Cupcake, but it’s not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The established role of law enforcement is to maintain order so the governmental unit it serves may continue to function. Sorry if this breaks your heart. You said that already. Are you going to answer the questions in my last post, the one where I exposed your contradictions and you are ignoring, or are you going to just declare things to be true like what you claim is the “established” role of law enforcement and call me Cupcake and falsely claim that you’ve broken my heart? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308/140 "2018-12-21T06:42:32Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Warren v. District of Columbia did not conclude that the “primary objective of law enforcement at any level is to maintain order so the governmental unit which they serve can continue to function.” > > However, I asked you for a SCOTUS decision. > The first sentence of that article: > > _“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”_ > > is incorrect. That is, it’s incorrect if it’s to be interpreted to mean all people in all circumstances (which seemed to be the author’s intent) rather than literally “a person” in a specific type of circumstance. > > In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, “the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order.” It’s a right to sue case. > > [Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) > > That’s not a ruling saying “the police don’t have a duty to protect, ever.” Here is a decent law review article. The “Background” section gives a good overview of it. It is called the public duty doctrine. The article explains it better, but it is the basic tort idea that the police have a duty to protect the public as a whole, and owes no duty to a particular individual , and cannot therefore be sued for a failure to protect an individual in an individual circumstance. Some states have abolished the doctrine, but most retain it as do the feds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/code-adam-and-storekeepers-privilege/826308.md?page=8)