A Legacy of Government’s Monopoly: The Lack of a Right to Protection

For the most part, federal courts have agreed. The Supreme Court held in an 1856 case that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person.16 In 1982, a federal court of appeals said:
. . . [T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.17

These rulings are probably consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people would largely be responsible for their own safety.18 They note that under English common law the sheriff’s main jobs were collecting taxes and enforcing government decisions. Keeping public order was a secondary duty.

"Courts have ruled that government does not have a specific duty to protect individuals."