The public duty doctrine defenses are subject to the special duty exception. The special duty exception does not create liability. However, it operates to negate the public duty doctrine defense and allows a victim to pursue a possible cause of proceeding under the GTLA (Government Tort Liability Act). (Scott, 2008) Police have an obligation to protect the public at large and therefore do not have a duty to protect individual citizens. Police are held to the same standards as a private citizen who would probably neglect to help a victim being rob in their presence, whereas, no special relationship exists. Tennessee statutes provide domestic violence victims with greater protection than their counterparts by mandating police perform certain functions in domestic violence arrests. However, Tennessee's mandatory detention statute did not withstand probe in court. In Hudson v. Hudson, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that officials might assert a qualified immunity defense when performing discretionary, without ministerial, functions. (Scott, 2008) Tennessee mandatory arrest statute required that law enforcement officers have "reasonable cause to believe" that a respondent has violated the protection order, the statute required some discretion, and the court found that the qualified immunity defense applied. (Scott, 2008) When a statute is written to mandate a particular duty, removing all aspects of the option, the qualified immunity defense will not protect law enforcement officers who do not perform their orders.
…show more content…
(2008). Trying to Touch the Untouchables: The Challenges Faced by Texas Plaintiffs Asserting Failure-to-Protect Suits Against Police Departments; Austin 27.3 (539-564). Retrieved August 23, 2017, from
(2008). Trying to Touch the Untouchables: The Challenges Faced by Texas Plaintiffs Asserting Failure-to-Protect Suits Against Police Departments; Austin 27.3 (539-564). Retrieved August 23, 2017, from