Don&#39;t police actually have an obligation to arrest in some domestic cases ala NRS 171.137?
<p>The previous answers say police have no duty to arrest. Yet it seems statutes in many states require arrests in some domestic violence cases. For example, in Nevada, <a href="https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.HTML#NRS171Sec137" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NRS  171.137</a> is entitled,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Arrest <em>required</em> for suspected battery constituting domestic violence.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please clarify.</p>
<p>Although this is a Nevada law it's a very common law in many states. Many domestic violence cases occur so this would give police obligations in a wide range of cases.</p>

<p><strong>You are asking a different question</strong></p>
<p>The title to the <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/53515/do-police-have-a-civil-duty-to-do-their-job">earlier question</a> -- &quot;Do the police have a civil duty to do their job&quot; -- is slightly misleading. The question is not whether the policy have an <em>abstract</em> &quot;civil&quot; duty to enforce the law, but whether they have a <em>specific</em> &quot;constitutional&quot; duty to do so. If they do have such a specific duty, then, as they OP says, they could &quot;be sued for not doing their job.&quot;</p>
<p>As ohwilleke explains thoroughly, the answer to this question is &quot;no.&quot; The Supreme Court has consistently held there is no constitutional right to police enforcement of the law. In particular, the SCt has held that police aren't violating the 14th Amendment when they don't &quot;do their job.&quot; According to the Court, someone who is hurt when the police don't enforce the law, is <em>not</em> deprived of &quot;life, liberty or property <em>without due process of law.</em>&quot; This in turn means that the people who are hurt can't sue the police under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§1983</a>, which allows people to sue state or local officials who violate their constitutional rights.</p>
<p>As you point out, the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nevada statute</a> clearly requires officers to make an arrest in some cases. However, this requirement is <em>not absolute;</em> the statute also creates an exception to the requirement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a peace officer <em>shall,</em> <strong>unless mitigating circumstances exist,</strong> arrest a person when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has...committed a battery upon his or her spouse..</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The statute goes on to explicitly exempt the officer and her department from liability if she decides not to make an arrest:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Nothing in this section</em> shall be construed to <em>impose liability</em> upon a peace officer or his or her employer for a determination made in good faith by the peace officer <em>not to arrest a person</em> pursuant to this section.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus, the statute sends mixed signals to police officers. On the one hand, it requires them to make arrests in some domestic violence cases; on the other hand, it says they are not liable if they ignore this requirement.</p>
<p>Taken together, the Nevada statute and the SCt's decisions mean people who are hurt if police don't make an arrest under 171.137 cannot sue the police under either state or federal law.</p>

criminal-law police nevada