The document discusses various police liability issues that can arise in different situations: 1) Police officers have a duty to perform all duties, whether required or volunteered, with reasonable care. They can be liable for failing to act when they have a clear duty to do so. 2) When dealing with incapacitated individuals, officers must protect drunk or mentally ill people and provide them with protective custody. They also have an affirmative duty to prevent harm to arrestees and provide reasonable medical care to injured individuals in custody. 3) Officers can incur liability for negligence during emergency vehicle operations if they do not operate with due regard for safety and comply with statutes and department policies regarding pursuits.

1. Police Liability Issues

2. All Duties, Imposed or Volunteered, Must Be
Performed With Reasonable Care
•Better – at times – not to assume a duty than to assume it and
perform it poorly.
•Liability for failure to act is very rare.
•However, when police fail to act where duty is clear, liability
attaches.

3. Care of Incapacitated Persons
Drunks
•No Arrest
•Must be protected – placed in some sort of protective custody
until sober
Mentally Ill
•Emergency Commitment
•Court Ordered

4. Emergency Medical Care
Unknown if an affirmative duty to take action exists.
The “Good Sam” law should apply in most situations.
Cannot impede care being given by others on scene.

5. Arrestees
Duty to prevent assault by others (at scene or at holding facility).
Do not place combative arrestees in the same cell.
Jail Suicides
•Affirmative duty exists if officer has knowledge (i.e., by
observation, from a psychologist, or threats, etc.).
•Officer must act reasonably.
•No strict liability (but not complete bar to liability).
•All existing department regulations must be followed.

6. Reasonable Medical Care
Liability greatest when injuries caused by the arrest procedure
itself.
•Shows that officer probably had knowledge of injury.
•Can lead to a Title 43 U.S.C. 1983 action.
We are responsible for illness that commences after onset of
custody.
•In those cases where a reasonable police officer
should have recognized that there was a problem.

7. Duty to Protect Property in Police Custody
From arrests, search warrants, found, seized, etc.
Duty of Reasonable Care
Duty Not to Convert
Varying “Bailments”
•Seized Property = Highest Duty
•Parking DWI car = Least Duty

8. Police Aid to Private Citizens
Assumption of Duty is key.
Upon assuming duty, your actions must be reasonable.
Officers can incur liability for any civil rights violation they may
commit.
Examples: Landlord/tenant, repossessions, tresspassing

9. Statutory Duties
Negligence = Liability
Exception: Domestic violence
Officers have Statutory Immunity, but must act reasonably

10. Statutory Duties
Negligence = Liability
Exception: Domestic violence
Officers have Statutory Immunity, but must act reasonably

11. Negligence During Police Emergencies
Emergency Vehicle Operations
- Largely Governed by Statute, but statutes only set up outside
parameters
- Non-compliance is strong evidence of negligence!
- At most, statutes only grant limited authority to police.

12. Statutes specify conduct and equipment requirements.
Must operate with due regard for others, road conditions, your
driving abilities, etc.
Internal department policies may be more restrictive than statutes.
- Limit discretion.
- More confining.
- Violation = liability

13. Statutes specify conduct and equipment requirements.
(cont’d)
Must show strict compliance
- Must be actual emergency or . . .
- Officer must reasonably believe emergency exists.
- NOT going “code 3” can be reasonable, if appropriate
under the circumstances.

14. A.R.S. § 28-624(D)
The provisions of this statute DO NOT relieve the
driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the
duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all
persons, nor do its provisions protect the driver from
the consequences of his/her reckless disregard for the
safety of others.

15. Due Regard for Safety of Others
Was emergency real or apparent?
Was pursuit negligently undertaken?
Was pursuit negligently continued?
Were other officers available?
What was the time of day ?
What were the traffic conditions?
Did officers comply w/ department policy?
- Initiation
- Continuation
- Units involved
- Citizen Observers
- On board prisoners

16. Collisions Involving Pursued Vehicles
An officer can be held liable even if his vehicle was not
physically involved.
Negligence can still be shown if:
- Less dangerous alternatives were available at the
time
- Driver obviously had no intention of surrendering
- Consequences were foreseeable
Intervening acts don’t always block liability!!!
Remember . . .
“Joint Tortfeaser” & “Comparative Negligence”
doctrines may well apply.

17. Negligently Undertaken Chases
Seldom deemed negligent:
Officers have right – if not duty – to apprehend.
But officers can be found negligent if:
- Officer created pursuit
- Was in plain clothes.
- Used an unmarked car.
- Drew weapon, but did not ID self as officer.