just curious

[1231a123]

new Jersey just curios if a officer stops a person on the street for being publicly intoxicated on drugs but the person is just high an not poseeing them an the officer has to let them go because of this an something happens to that person is the officer in any way liable

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The police aren't going to be liable in virtually any situation like this.

If a person is publicly intoxicated they can be arrested. It really doesn't matter what chemical they used to intoxicate them.

 

[quincy]

new Jersey just curios if a officer stops a person on the street for being publicly intoxicated on drugs but the person is just high an not poseeing them an the officer has to let them go because of this an something happens to that person is the officer in any way liable

If a pedestrian is intoxicated but not visibly intoxicated, and if the pedestrian is not carrying an open container of alcohol or smoking pot or something similar, they won't attract the attention of police officers. It will be for disturbing the peace in some way that will generally lead to an intoxicated pedestrian's arrest.

Were you, or someone you know, arrested?

 

[Just Blue]

@1231a123

Any question you have regarding how this site is run, ask here on your thread. Stop posting on other members threads.

 

[Taxing Matters]

new Jersey just curios if a officer stops a person on the street for being publicly intoxicated on drugs but the person is just high an not poseeing them an the officer has to let them go because of this an something happens to that person is the officer in any way liable

Even if the person is noticeably intoxicated the police have no obligation to arrest them or otherwise take them off the sidewalk. If the intoxicated person later injures himself/herself, the police will not be liable for that.

 

[1231a123]

But they do have a obligation

Even if the person is noticeably intoxicated the police have no obligation to arrest them or otherwise take them off the sidewalk. If the intoxicated person later injures himself/herself, the police will not be liable for that.

But they do have a obligation

 

[quincy]

But they do have a obligation

But they do have a obligation

They have an obligation once the pedestrian is in police custody.

They (generally) have no obligation to protect people from themselves.

Is this something that happened to you or someone you know?

 

[Just Blue]

But they do have a obligation

But they do have a obligation

Taxing Matters is a site vetted Attorney.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

But they do have a obligation

But they do have a obligation

No, they don't. The Supreme Court has ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the police have no duty to protect a person from harm.

 

[quincy]

No, they don't. The Supreme Court has ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the police have a duty to protect a person from harm.

Do you mean "no duty?"

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Do you mean "no duty?"

Of course, I do.

 

[Taxing Matters]

But they do have a obligation

An obligation to do what, exactly? No law requires that the police must arrest an obviously intoxicated person. If the person is in such a condition that he or she is violating some public intoxication law the police may arrest the person for that violation. But that is at the discretion of the officer. If the officer decides not to arrest and let the person go on their way then the officer has no responsibility for whatever trouble the intoxicated person may later encounter.

 

[not2cleverRed]

new Jersey just curios if a officer stops a person on the street for being publicly intoxicated on drugs but the person is just high an not poseeing them an the officer has to let them go because of this an something happens to that person is the officer in any way liable

If I had a dime for every time someone complained about getting in trouble for public intox, particularly MIP cases... Well, I'd be driving a newer car.

 

[HighwayMan]

No, they don't. The Supreme Court has ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the police have no duty to protect a person from harm.

That case dealt with a restraining order though. A bit of a different situation.

If we (my job) come across a person who is obviously not able to care for themselves they get a ride in an ambulance to the local hospital.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That case dealt with a restraining order though. A bit of a different situation.

If we (my job) come across a person who is obviously not able to care for themselves they get a ride in an ambulance to the local hospital.

Yes, that was what the case was specifically about but the way the decision was written they could easily carry over into case like the OP's.

And your agencies policy is a good one but there would be no recourse if it wasn't.