Let’s talk about suicidal subjects and the special relationship doctrine.<\/p>\n
This question comes from a chief in New York.<\/p>\n
He writes: I know every situation is different, I appreciate that, the facts definitely change the answer. It seems like nationally the best practice indicates that if we have a suicidal person who is not a danger to other people, who only presents a danger to themselves, and who has barricaded themselves in a room, we should probably just not force an entry. We should not create a danger by forcing a confrontation.<\/p>\n
That is where I’m at on these things too.<\/p>\n
I’ve talked to people at LAPD, LA Sheriff’s Department, Las Vegas Metro, some very big agencies that look at these issues. That’s what they’re doing. They are not forcing their way in. They would rather leave than force the confrontation.<\/p>\n
Because oftentimes when you force the entry, it creates a suicide by cop. Whereas if you leave, yes, some people do take their own life, but probably not as many as those who would have had you do it for them.<\/p>\n
However, I’m a little concerned about what the chief says regarding explanations he’d had about special relationships. So let’s talk about it.<\/p>\n
Generally speaking, there is no duty for law enforcement to protect people from either themselves or other people.<\/p>\n
You have to realize, is there a moral, ethical duty? Oftentimes yes.<\/p>\n
If you’re at a cafe on duty, taking a break, drinking your coffee, and you see a person across the street getting carjacked, should you get involved? Absolutely. Do you have to get involved on threat of a civil lawsuit? The answer is no. Because there’s no special relationship between you and that person.<\/p>\n
The rules have to be that way. Otherwise you’d be inundated with endless lawsuits about your lack of stellar performance, your negligence, getting into an accident on the way to a call and then being sued because if you had arrived you would have been able to help.<\/p>\n
There are two things I like to say create a special relationship.<\/p>\n
One: the person is in your custody.<\/strong> If you seize them, you kind of own them, temporarily at least. That’s pretty easy. And that’s not what’s going on here. Nobody is seized inside the house.<\/p>\n Two: you do something affirmative that creates a foreseeable danger.<\/strong><\/p>\n A good example. You stop a car for DUI. The driver is going to jail. The passenger is highly intoxicated, and you’re on the highway, and the off ramp is a thousand feet away. The person says I’ll just walk off the ramp, and you say all right, go ahead. The person stumbles into the highway and gets hit.<\/p>\n That, most likely, with those bare facts, is a special relationship. You had a legal obligation to ensure that passenger was safe under those circumstances.<\/p>\n Whether you still have a special relationship if you’re on a city street and the person’s on a sidewalk and you let them walk off? We’d have to look at it.<\/p>\n But the point is, sometimes officers do things that create a danger.<\/p>\n Chicago Police had a female detained. She got arrested at O’Hare for disorderly conduct and they brought her down to the substation. They ended up releasing her around two o’clock in the morning, and the substation was in a very bad neighborhood.<\/p>\n She ended up being attacked and suffered catastrophic injuries.<\/p>\n The court there also found there was a special relationship. By releasing her, not giving her a choice, just kind of pushing her out the door at two in the morning in a place she wasn’t even from, she was flying through O’Hare, they created a danger.<\/p>\n So you’ve got to look at those things.<\/p>\n Generally speaking, when you’re on these calls, you’re not creating any danger. You’re not doing anything affirmative to increase their level of injury. If they do it, it’s on their own.<\/p>\n So I think it’s very hard to have a special relationship in most of these circumstances.<\/p>\n However, there was a case recently out of Ohio. An officer showed up because the family said their grandfather was suicidal. They contacted the grandfather, and he had a gun. I forget the exact details, but they were able to seize the gun right then and there during the investigation, and they didn’t. They allowed him to keep possession of the firearm. He later took his own life.<\/p>\n The court found it was grossly negligent, reckless, to be investigating a suicide call and not even temporarily seize a firearm<\/a> that you had lawful access to during the encounter.<\/p>\n Those are the facts as I understand them. You’ve got to look at the case. And I think that one was also based on Ohio law rather than the Fourth Amendment and due process. But you do have to be aware of things like that.<\/p>\n It’s a very complicated topic. There are other people out there much better qualified to talk about legal liability issues than me. But that’s my take on it.<\/p>\n I hope it helps. Keep the questions coming. These videos are intended to help you get it right every single time.<\/p>\nA second example<\/h2>\n
Back to the suicide call<\/h2>\n
My take<\/h2>\n
Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n