Parkland Officer on trail for child neglect

[lanceodom]

This is interesting.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-officer-accused-failing-confront-school-shooter-faces/story?id=99702049

[Lawhunter]

I cannot say I feel bad for him.

[Chew]

He is a worthless POS in my opinon. But...my guess is he gets convicted...probably on some lesser charges. Then case will be overturned on appeal based on previous case law stating LEOs have "no duty to protect" someone unless they're in custody. Hopefully TVC will chime in with his case law quoting self.

[TexasBob]

Doubt he gets convicted. Wish he would get the max and set precedent. Then everyone in that uvalde school pacing around gets it as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

He is a worthless POS in my opinon. But...my guess is he gets convicted...probably on some lesser charges. Then case will be overturned on appeal based on previous case law stating LEOs have "no duty to protect" someone unless they're in custody. Hopefully TVC will chime in with his case law quoting self.

I can but it will be a dissertation.

… and I agree with your scenario.

[Ætheling]

A coward dies a thousand deaths. A hero dies but one.

[tvc184]

He is a worthless POS in my opinon. But...my guess is he gets convicted...probably on some lesser charges. Then case will be overturned on appeal based on previous case law stating LEOs have "no duty to protect" someone unless they're in custody. Hopefully TVC will chime in with his case law quoting self.

I have been shying away from legal commentary lately. The law tends to ruffle some people’s feathers on TBH.

So here is the master’s thesis….

The case will likely come down to “duty to protect” and “special relationships”.

The SCOTUS covers duty to protect in a couple of cases but most notably the landmark case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

In Castle Rock SCOTUS ruled that there is no US Constitution requirement for the police to protect. That is correct. Nothing in the Constitution demands police protection.

This case is sometimes used for anti-police rhetoric to say that the police according to SCOTUS never have to do anything. That is not correct. It falls under state policing powers and state constitutions and laws as per the Tenth Amendment.

A state or police department can absolutely demand a police action and do.

As you (and all other Texas officers) know, most police actions are discretionary. The police “may” do something. They may make a probable cause arrest or may detain a person with reasonable suspicion or may write a police report/investigation. There are however “shall” laws (very few) and those are mandatory. An easy example is the requirement that the police make a police report on any situation that may involve Family Violence. Then it requires giving written information to the victim about how to seek further assistance such as a woman’s shelter or the filing of a Protective Order.

The Protective Order is another mandatory action by the police. If a person violates a Protective Order in the presence of the police (such as being on his own property after a Family Violence arrest), an arrest is mandatory.

Those are just a couple of examples of required actions by the police where the officer(s) can be held accountable if sued. I have seen such lawsuits in Texas.

In fact the Castle Rock case was exactly that. A woman’s children were kidnapped and murdered by her estranged husband under a similar situation (Colorado restraining order) where Texas law requires some action but Colorado’s did not. Colorado had no such law at that time requiring police action. SCOTUS did not say that officers could not be held accountable. They can in both civil and criminal situations however it is up to the STATE, not the US Constitution.

Next is special relationships.

The Special Relationships doctrine is a legal principle requiring a duty of care to which a government official, including the police, can be held accountable. That is IF there was an action to assume the protection of a person(s). An example might be if an officer picked up a 15 year old who was breaking curfew. So the officer either took the juvenile into custody for a curfew violation or protective custody to try to turn the child over to his parents rather than take legal action. So the officer put the Juvenile into the patrol car, either in handcuffs in custody or without so as to only try to find a parent. After attempting to find a parent or while heading to the police station, the officer changes his mind. The kid is not worth the time and effort so the officer released the child back to the street. At that point, the officer has assumed a special relationship. If that child is injured or killed, the officer may be held liable either in a civil action or potentially under state criminal law.

With the same reasoning, let’s say an officer picked up a guy who was intoxicated. The officer arrested him for public intoxication but on the way to the jail, decided to release him on the side of the highway, because a more interesting call came over the radio. The officer is now likely responsible if the person is injured or killed. The officer was likely under no duty to make the arrest for public intoxication, depending on state law, or department policy, but once the person is in custody, the officer has to ensure his safety by transporting the person to a safe location such as home or a jail.

So what does duty to protect and special relationships have to do with this Florida case?

Everything.

Deputy (former) Peterson is being charged with the children killed on the third floor of the school and also some adults wounded also on the third floor. Interestingly, he is not being charged with any injuries or deaths on the first floor since he was on campus but not yet on scene at that building. So the state is basically admitting that simply being on campus as a school resource officer doesn’t make an officer liable for what happens on campus. It wasn’t until Peterson arrived at the building, about a minute after the shooting started, that the state decided that he became liable. So possibly 200 yards away he was not responsible but when he approached the building where shots were being fired (about 75 feet away), he became responsible.

Looking at Castle Rock as guidance, was there a specific duty to enter the school building?

Also, did Peterson have a special relationship with the injured and killed? Were they in his protective custody or under his direct protection?

I believe they will have a hard time under a special relationship, if the state even uses that as a nexus to prove a duty to protect. Then… (again) is there a Florida law making an officer or anyone, criminally responsible for failure to act? When reading about this case several months ago, I could find no such law or any news article mentioning one. It seemed at the time that the prosecution was stretching the standard injury to a child law or endangering a child law in order to hold Peterson responsible criminally.

Of course I didn’t read all of Florida’s laws so the prosecution might have found something that fits.

So with Castle Rock setting down the Constitution standard that there has to be a state law requiring action by an officer (such as Texas Family Violence or Protective Order laes), does Florida law require an officer to act by rushing into a building where shots are being fired? I suspect the answer is no so they are charging him as if he was a parent with a child endangerment type of crime.

I believe that Chew is likely correct in that he will be convicted of something but it will be overturned on appeal. Again however, I am not familiar with Florida laws although I looked up some. If there is a state law that applies to this situation, Caste Rock won’t protect him as I have seen some officers claim.

But… no matter the law, you never know what a state appeals court will come up with. As a quick example is Brighham City, UT v. Stuart. In that case, the police were lawfully at a home but outside and through a glass door, saw a person being beaten. The police rushed in to break it up and possibly save the person from serious injury or death. The Utah Supreme Court said that the police had no such authority to save a person who they actually witnessed being beaten (they could see blood). HUH???

A unanimous SCOTUS said… what in the he!! were y’all thinking!??

I am not saying that a federal court can’t make a mistake and they do but this state court mistake seemed so egregious. Compare the Utah decision where their Supreme Court not only said that the police had no duty to protect, they DENIED the officers from entering to protect.

[mavrick]

I think he retired drawing well over a$100,000 a year.

[tvc184]

I think he retired drawing well over a$100,000 a year.

I think $104,000.

I think I read that by their state law, if he is convicted of a felony, he loses his pension.