The Case that Keeps Me Up at Night

Amylyn Slaymaker was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband and, one night in 2019, he threatened to kill her while hitting her. When the police came to her aid, she counted on them to protect her, taking them at her word. They assured her that they were putting her husband on a psychiatric hold at a local hospital. Taking them at their word, she returned home.

But the police did not keep their word. There was no hold. In fact, they denied saying that at all. The federal district court, and then the Seventh Circuit appellate court found that the police could not be held liable for promising her something that put her in harm's way.

They were protected by sovereign immunity.

Amylyn's estate argued that the cops were not protected by sovereign immunity based on the state created danger exception - an execption that I argue here is TOO narrow.

Here, the court decided that the cops had not actually created the danger. The danger was Amylyn's husband, and they did not increase the danger to her by telling her that he was locked up.

I certainly understand the need to not chip away too heavily at immunities in order to allow public officials to do their job. But this sets an extremely dangerous precedent. If a victim, who is still very much in danger, cannot take the police at their word, then what good is served by their service?

We expect more out of people in everyday tort (civil wrongs) situations. That driver should have been looking up instead of at the radio when they rearended the car in front of them. Or in contracts. If the consumer didn't want to not be able to sue the company that injured them, they should have read the terms and conditions more closely.

The police, whose mistakes can be deadly, should be held to the same standard as those buying lawnmowers or driving a car. They should be expected to keep their word. Lives are depending on it.