Book SummaryThe Law Says What?, by Maclen Stanley

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of The Law Says What?

Police Officers and Enforcing Legal Standards

Police Aren't Legally Required to Protect Citizens

This section examines the surprising legal reality that police officers generally have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens from harm. Stanley argues that this lack of a clearly defined obligation is rooted in the legal concept of "special relationships." He then explores several controversial cases to illustrate how hard it is to prove such a relationship.

Police Have No Obligation to Protect the Public

Stanley highlights the landmark case of Warren versus District of Columbia to illustrate the principle that police are not obligated to protect individual citizens. Here, three females were brutally attacked over a 14-hour period while police failed to respond adequately to their repeated pleas for assistance. The court ultimately determined that, in the absence of a "special relationship," the police were not legally obligated to provide the women protection. Stanley emphasizes that this standard of a "particular connection" is the same one applied to average citizens. Typically, people don't have a legal obligation to rescue or protect someone else from harm, even when witnessing a violent crime or accident.

Stanley then delves into several cases that demonstrate how difficult it can be to establish the sort of "special relationship" that would obligate police by law to protect a citizen. He argues that simply calling 9-1-1 does not suffice, offering the examples of Hartzler V. City of San Jose, where a woman was murdered by her estranged husband after police refused to respond to her call for help, and the case of Lozito, where a subway passenger was stabbed repeatedly while police officers allegedly watched from an adjoining subway car. However, Stanley explains that in certain cases, the judiciary has found "special relationships" present when police behavior directly induces a citizen to rely upon them for safety. The example of Gardner V. Village of Chicago Ridge highlights this principle, where police were found liable after requesting a citizen's assistance in identifying a suspect, which resulted in the citizen being attacked again.

Context

• The concept of a "special relationship" in legal terms often refers to situations where one party has an obligation to act for the benefit of another due to a specific relationship, such as a caregiver or a contractual agreement. In the context of police, this can arise when their actions create a reliance on their protection.

Other Perspectives

• The principle may not take into account the implicit social contract between citizens and law enforcement, where citizens forgo certain rights (e.g., carrying out personal justice) in exchange for protection and service from the police.
• The ruling in Warren versus District of Columbia may set a concerning precedent that could potentially discourage police from taking proactive measures to protect the public, as it could be interpreted that they are not legally required to do so unless a "special relationship" exists.
• The legal duty to rescue may exist if there is a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as parent-child, teacher-student, or employer-employee relationships.
• The principle that it is challenging to establish a "special relationship" may not take into account the evolving nature of case law, where precedents can change over time, potentially making it easier to establish such relationships in the future.
• While it may be true that police did not have a legal obligation in those specific cases, it could be argued that there is a moral or ethical duty for police to protect individuals in danger, especially when they are actively seeking help.
• The threshold for what constitutes inducing a citizen to rely on the police for safety might be set too high, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prove their case and receive justice when they have been wronged.

Reasons Against Mandating Police Protection: Avoiding Lawsuits, Maintaining Forces

Stanley explains that the absence of an explicit duty to protect for police is ultimately a pragmatic consideration. He argues that establishing legal accountability between police and individual citizens would likely lead to an avalanche of lawsuits for every offense that wasn't prevented, ultimately consuming valuable public resources. Additionally, he suggests that imposing such a duty would discourage qualified candidates from wanting to become police officers, knowing they could face legal repercussions for each crime they were unable to prevent.

Practical Tips

• You can enhance your personal safety by taking a basic self-defense course. Learning self-defense empowers you to protect yourself in situations where police protection may not be immediately available. For example, a course in Krav Maga or another practical martial art can provide you with the skills to defend against common threats.
• Start a discussion group with friends or community members to brainstorm alternative incentives that could attract qualified candidates to law enforcement without the pressure of a duty-to-protect obligation. This could lead to innovative ideas that balance the need for public safety with the concerns of potential recruits.

Police Authority and Jurisdiction Across Boundaries

This section explores the common misconception that officers lose their authority to chase suspects if they cross jurisdictional boundaries, such as municipal, county, or state borders. Stanley argues that police can cross these boundaries when pursuing a suspect, and even have the power to enter into other states.

Doctrine of "Hot Pursuit" Allows Officers to Cross Borders

Stanley explains that Hollywood often misrepresents this legal point; the belief that police stop at jurisdictional boundaries is not true. He explains that different types of police, namely municipal,...

The Law Says What? Summary Legal Consequences of Crimes

This section explores several important concepts in criminal law, including the difference between federal and state-level criminal law, strict liability crimes, and the "felony murder" doctrine.

Strict Liability Crimes Like Statutory Rape

This portion focuses on a particular type of criminal liability known as "strict liability," where guilt is determined solely by whether the defendant performed the deed, regardless of their intent or knowledge. Stanley argues that laws concerning statutory rape are emblematic of this type of liability, and that the rationale for applying strict liability in this area stems from an attempt to protect vulnerable individuals.

Protecting Vulnerable Individuals Despite Lack of Intent

Stanley explains that the majority of offenses require a particular mental state (mens rea) in addition to the physical criminal act. He then details the four main levels of mens rea: acting purposely, acting knowingly, behaving recklessly, and acting negligently. However, Stanley points out that a few crimes, like the statutory offense of rape, are strict liability offenses, meaning that mens rea is entirely irrelevant. He offers the specific example of...

The Law Says What? Summary Rights, Liberties, and Ownership

This section examines the intersection of law and rights in three important areas: privacy rights as applied to abortion, adverse possession and property ownership, and the government's power to take land under eminent domain.

Constitutional Privacy Rights and Abortion

This portion discusses a deeply contentious topic in American jurisprudence: the constitutional safeguards afforded to abortion. Stanley argues that, while seemingly straightforward, laws around abortion hinge on the implied right to keep one's matters private, a legal construct not explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. He explores how the "right of privacy" has been used to justify the landmark Roe V. Wade decision, and explains how states have worked to circumvent these protections through increasingly restrictive laws.

Constitutional Text Implying Privacy Rights

Stanley explains the landmark case of Roe V. Wade where the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. However, surprising to most, Stanley argues that the reasoning for this decision wasn't explicitly in the Constitution's language. Rather, privacy rights were applied to safeguard the ability to obtain an...