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.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.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
But they do have a obligationEven 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.
They have an obligation once the pedestrian is in police custody.But they do have a obligation
But they do have a obligation
Taxing Matters is a site vetted Attorney.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.But they do have a obligation
But they do have a obligation
Do you mean "no duty?"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.
Of course, I do.Do you mean "no duty?"
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.But they do have a obligation
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.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
That case dealt with a restraining order though. A bit of a different situation.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.
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.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.