I need to tell you that what happened, as you are relating it here doesn't make any sense, based on only on the facts as you have presented them. You state " I was hysterical and in shock but told them we had to go back to the house and the one officer said "why do you want to go back there for?" which upset me even more-I felt like I was in more danger."

Reread that sentence...."I was so in shock ( unable to formulate cohesive thoughts, sentences, and ideas) yet I had the presence of mind to identify and evaluate a reason in my head for going BACK into a situation that I now identify as life threateningly dangerous." I would ask the same question--WHY would you willfully go back into a situation you state was dangerous? And furthermore, certainly you do not expect the police to act as your personal bodyguards?? If they DID go back, it was to investigate (which they did through proper channels, search warrant, etc, the following day), NOT take YOU (the presumed) victim WITH them to investigate. WHY did it anger you that they asked WHY you wanted to go back? Isn't it a legitimate question?? THEN, later in your posting, you state you TOLD the officers to get you OUT of the neighborhood--after stating twice in your posting that you demanded to be taken BACK there?

That being said, what did you WANT them to do?? They offered you assistance---helped you call a friend. You admit you aren't sure you told them you were hurt, now you are faulting them for not ASKING? And, my dear, if you were SCREAMING at them, I suspect they WOULDN'T ask if you were hurt--you were well enough to scream and were loudly informing them of your condition. Put yourself in THEIR shoes for a moment. A woman who admits she was drinking starts screaming at them that she is in danger---then demands to be taken BACK to the scene of the impending danger. Ummmm, 'kay.

Fictional TV shows give people the idea that if they call for help, a police officer is to immediately fling himself or herself into harms way. This is incorrect. Police officers acting under color of the law ( meaning, while performing their job ) are immune from lawsuits like the one you are implying. Now--had they put you in handcuffs, and walked you back to the door, and left you on the doorstep to be attacked by the alleged attacker, that would be different. The police, in fact, are not always required by law to offer assistance. However, in your case, the police DID offer assistance--you admit they allowed you into their car, and assisted you in getting help. This indicates that the officers exercised a reasonable duty of care in response to your situation that, even to an third party, seems bizarre in the manner in which you have relayed it here. You never did state what was so important that you simply HAD to return to the residence to get---was it important enough to allegedly risk your life and the life of two officers to obtain?

Think about what you are asking. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

And, the fact that the alleged attacker invoked his rights assures you as the presumed victim, that there is no way the case against him, if it is deemed legitimate, can be thrown out on a technicality, such as "I wasn't read my rights!" or "I was refused counsel!!" You also decline to state if the man was charged. Was he charged and arrested? What was the charge? Also, your posting states that the police went the NEXT DAY with a search warrant---I don't know what city you live in, but the fact that the police went out the next day is remarkable and speaks to their dedication and professionalism.

I am uncertain as to what you expected them to do, but I suspect the consensus is that you were very fortunate to have them there to begin with.