Victim-Police Ignored me?

Florida. I was assaulted on a date. I ran from the house screaming and a police car drove by and stopped. 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. They asked for my ID, they asked if I had been drinking (and I told them I had a few drinks, but over 5 hours, so I wasn't drunk), they asked if I wanted to call a friend. It was midnight in a dead neighborhood-I'm on the sidewalk scared and screaming. I don't remember them asking me I was hurt at all or anything like it.

I couldn't spit out any intelligible words for the most part, but I think I told them he hurt me. I don't remember, but I know I told them we had to go back to the house. The guy left his house, got in his car and circled us twice or three times (I pointed out his car to the officers) and the officers didn't do anything when I said there he is. I felt I was in danger and asked the officers to get me out of that neighborhood. We stopped at a gas station and called my friends who picked me up. Then my friends took me to the hospital. The hospital notified the police of the assault. The detectives got a search warrant the following late afternoon and confronted him, which he immediately invoked his rights.

Is it right what the first officers did? Should I just let this go?

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.

Let's assume for a second that the officers did do something wrong here, what is it that you would like to do? Sue them, or the city for negligence of their duty to protect you?

A little tutorial on civil liability. The laws that govern conduct of police officers fall under Section 1983 (tort). While everyone thinks it is the police mans job to "protect" them---not only is this not realistic, it also isn't legal. Consider the number of police officers on any given police force and the number of citizens in need at any given moment. It is a statistical impossibility for the police to protect and keep from harm every citizen within their given jurisdiction. Also, it is not the legal duty of the police to protect, despite the fact that it is displayed on police cars all over the country.

The Supreme Court has ruled that (a) "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). People have repeatedly attempted to sue civil municipalities and entities for failure to protect, yet few prevail.

There are two different considerations of liability, both very different from one another. First of all, did an officer fail to render aid (Did he drive past a building, not realizing a woman was inside screaming for help) ? Or secondly, did an officer actively participate in bringing about a harmful act? (Shooting into a crowd of people in an attempt at apprehending a suspect). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that officers are not civilly liable for failure to render aid, while they have, at times, found officers civilly responsible for those acts where they contributed to an undesirable outcome. However, even in those acts, the litmus test is reasonableness. Did the officer exercise a duty of care in acting in a reasonable manner? This is commonly the question in cases where, for example, a police officer sees a suspect reach into his pocket and pull out something shiny and point it ---and the officer shoots, thinking it is a weapon, only to find out it is a fake weapon, or a cell phone. The officer may not even then be liable---the court must determine after weighing all the facts, did the officer act REASONABLY?

From a legal standpoint, the police had no responsibility to even STOP when they saw the woman standing outside screaming, but they did. And, additionally, they did render aid by helping her get in touch with a friend, and furthermore, by investigating immediately, the next day, through proper procedure (obtaining a search warrant, etc). Sounds like a textbook example of proper police conduct.

Thank you for your tutorial, but it was unnecessary. My question was more rhetorical than anything, as I did not think that the OP could successfully sue the PD/City, if that's what she did.

I wasn't assuming that YOU needed anything. I was and am hopeful that the information provided will help the original poster understand her situation as a matter of law, not merely my opinion. That was the purpose of the reply. It wasn't intended to be a reflection of anything or on anyone else, stated or implied.

By quoting me, you direct your statement at me. Not the OP.

Ok, Skippy. No quotes. Better?

We interrupt this LEGAL FORUM to bring a brief, albiet necessary recap of the facts. Nothing but the facts, Ma'am. (I've always wanted to type that. No, really, I have. Seriously.)

The original poster said " Is it right what the first officers did? Should I just let this go?"

Lets all pause for a weighty moment. There.

Now, do tell.. what do you think she meant by this comment? Did you think she was asking if a thank you note was in order? A bouquet of fresh flowers, perhaps? A home baked goodie basket?

Obviously, her implicit question was "SHOULD I ATTEMPT TO HOLD THESE OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR WHICH I PERSONALLY DEEM UNACCEPTABLE"? (i.e. fancy way of saying SUE). Clearly that was the POINT of her posting. Agreed?

Your posting does not indicate to the original poster that you know any more than does she about the law regarding such an action. You ask her to "assume for a moment that the officers did do something wrong here"---my dear, she already HAS assumed the officers did something wrong. Did you READ her first posting?? The entire missive was based on her assumption that the POLICE did something wrong.

Obviously, her intent is to ask if she SHOULD sue. You asking her if that is her intent implies to anyone else reading that you are not aware that it is impossible for her to do so. If you were aware, why didn't you do what I did--provide her with an accurate LEGAL answer instead of inviting her to use bandwidth and her valuable time trying to brainstorm and come up with any legal ground she believes she has for a lawsuit, when in reality, there is none? That was the intent of my posting.

I can honestly say that is probably the first time since coming to this forum when I have had someone take offense at being offered correct legal information, regardless of if they already knew it or not. Furthermore, obviously, the original poster DOESN'T know this information. And this isn't a private message--it is a public posting and chances are, she WILL read it. And, you asking her if she was considering a lawsuit (after she obviously stated that she was) may reasonably indicate that you don't know that, in fact, as a matter of law, she cannot sue for negligence.

Not interested? Simply disregard. Already know the answer to the question? Answer it yourself. Disagree with my answer? Correct it.

When I offer information in this forum, I fully expect to be corrected when I am wrong, or at the least, have people add information to what I've provided, especially when I am in areas that are only marginally related to my specialization in criminal law. I was required to take classes in civil liability, although aside from the information learned there, I have no other expertise or personal experience with tort action against police officers. Having to review this information on torts and Section 1983 was helpful to me since I had, in fact, not reviewed it for close to two years. I actually enjoyed looking it up to make sure I was correct before answering. And, often times, while reviewing something I think I already know, I learn something new, or see something I missed before. Having a passion for learning means you are never offended at rereading, "re-considering", or "re-thinking" any information.

Do you like pancakes?

I did tell them he hurt me, just so you know.

No lawsuit-I'm just worried that this guy is going to away with it, because it was a date and the first officers didn't seem to take it seriously. I almost didn't report the assault because I thought if they didn't think there was anthing wrong with me, that no one would.

He can afford very good defense attornies. I don't know if they will be able to bring that up.

I regret asking about this. I regret going to the police.

See, this is what is frustrating about all of this. Half information is misinformation. Your postings entirely contradict one another. Let me show you how and why.


First you state you aren't sure if you said he hurt you or not. NOW, you state you DID tell them he hurt you. You have, in one sentence, in the eyes of a defense attorney, discredited yourself---you contradicted yourself and a defense attorney on cross examination will discredit your entire testimony based on ONE falsehood or inconsistent statement. You MUST be consistent and above all, you MUST tell the truth--whichever statement is actually the truth. They cannot BOTH be true--they are diametrically opposed.

Secondly, you state "I almost did not report the assault...." yet your first posting states you were in shock, unable to utter a cohesive sentence. This is not the frame of mind necessary to evaluate making or not making a report about the assault. Per your first posting, your thought process at the time, running screaming onto the street was a fight or flight reaction to the alleged assault---hardly time to sit and reflect on the pros and cons of reporting the assault. Surely wondering if you are going to be believed didn't cross your mind mid attack, did it? "Boy, wow, this is awful---no one is gonna believe THIS really happened!! Whew!! Maybe I shouldn't run out to the street and scream for help ( an act of survival and desperation ) since the cops may not believe me. Hmm, what to do... what to do...."......... According to the first posting, you HAD no time to sit and contemplate, "Hmmm.. should I run on to the street and scream in this 'dead neighborhood' and hope someone hears me? Wonder if they will believe me... wonder if its worth it." Yet now, you are stating that is EXACTLY what you did--evaluated whether or not to mention the entire exchange. Far cry from screaming begging for refuge from a mad attacker.

Thirdly: You state "He can afford good defense attorneys---"I don't know if they will be able to bring that up"---bring WHAT up? You are glossing over important and relevant points. Bring up that you say you were hurt? Even if they DID---how does that prove that HE was the one that did the "hurting"?

Fourthly, your first posting said nothing about being afraid that the attacker would "get off" and not face charges. The entire gist of your posting was the officers conduct and their refusal to take you BACK to the scene of the alleged attack. Now, however, your posting is focusing on the attacker getting off and you not being believed--and you never answered the twenty dollar question--why did you want to go BACK to the scene of the alleged attack if you felt you were in danger? You see, none of this makes ANY sense.


The police obviously DID take you seriously. They offered you help, and they launched an investigation immediately.


You say they didn't seem to take it seriously? My question is the same--what did you expect them to do? I am seriously asking. What do you think is/was appropriate for them to do?

The questions I am asking you aren't intended to be adversarial--in fact, YOUR attorney, if you hire one, will ask you the VERY same ones. They will be asked of you on cross examination, if there is a trial. Tell the truth, and recount as honestly as you can---don't change your story. If you don't know, say you don't know. Jurors recognize and appreciate honesty.

The discrepancies in your story are glaring. Expect to be confronted with them and asked to explain.

Good luck.