United States Supreme Court
LURIA v. U S, (1913)
No. 27
Argued: April 23, 1913 Decided: October 20, 1913
[231 U.S. 9, 11] Messrs. Louis Marshall and A. M. Friedenberg for appellant.
[231 U.S. 9, 14] Assistant Attorney General Harr for appellee.
[231 U.S. 9, 17] Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:
...
[231 U.S. 9, 22]
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.
------------------------------------------------------------
No Duty To Protect
Pottle is a person who asked Sheriff South for protection. The Sheriff did not provide the protection. The original lower court case was a suit for damages done to Pottle because the Sheriff did not provide specifically requested assistance and protection.
------------------------------------------------------------
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
Where, in an action upon a sheriff's bond, the declaration did not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which the real plaintiff was personally interested, but with a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob, the declaration did not set forth a sufficient cause of action against the sheriff and his sureties.
[...]
The breach alleged is, in substance,
"that while Pottle was engaged about his lawful business, certain evil-disposed persons came about him, hindered and prevented him, threatened his life, with force of arms demanded of him a large sum of money, and imprisoned and detained him for the space of four days, and until he paid them the sum of $2,500 for his enlargement."
That South, the sheriff, being present, the plaintiff, Pottle, applied to him for protection and requested him to keep the peace of the State of Maryland, he, the said sheriff, having power and authority so to do. That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.
[...]
The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.
------------------------------------------------------------
In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.
The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
Stated in California Code 845:
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
