Are police legally required to stop a crime they see being committed?
<p>Say that a police officer walks down an alleyway and very clearly sees a crime being committed; say a mugging or a rape. Is the officer legally obligated to try to stop the crime? By “legally required”, I mean that they could be charged with a crime if they do not intervene.</p>

<p>Also, would there be extenuating circumstances based on the likelihood of being able to stop it? For instance, would a group of three armed police officers be required to stop a single unarmed criminal? Would a single unarmed officer not be legally required to stop twenty armed criminals?</p>

<p><sub>This is a purely hypothetical question, not one I am facing.</sub></p>

<p>No. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html" rel="noreferrer">Police aren't even required to protect people.</a></p>

<p>This is more complicated because one of the mandates of US police is as follows:</p>

<p>Order maintenance. This is the broad mandate to keep the peace or otherwise prevent behaviors which might disturb others. This can deal with things ranging from a barking dog to a fist-fight. By way of description, Cole and Smith note that police are usually called-on to "handle" these situations with discretion, rather than deal with them as strict violations of law, though of course their authority to deal with these situations are based in violations of law.</p>

<p>Since a crime would be considered behavior which might disturb others, then it could be argued that they are mandated to do such. </p>

united-states criminal-law police