S.Ct. 998. The clear rationale behind the state-created danger theory is that “when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Ame ed a triable issue of fact regarding whether a police officer’s act of stranding the female passenger of a drunk driver in a high crime area at 2:30 a.m., resulting in her being raped by a stranger, constituted affirmatively placing her in a position of danger); D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, 972 F.2d 1364 (3d Cir.1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); and Brown v. Grabowski 922 F.2d 1097 (3d
holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding that a school districts policy requiring fulltime attendance by all students did not establish a system of individualized exceptions that give rise to the application of a subjective test when the exceptions to the policy were confined to strict categories of students such as fifthyear seniors and special education students recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom