249 (1989), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Due Process Clause imposes upon the State an affirmative duty to protect an individual against private violence. The Court noted that “nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” Id. at 195, 109 S.Ct. 998. The Court added that “[i]ts purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other.” Id. at 196, 109 S.Ct. 998. According to the Third Circuit, “DeShaney ... stands for the harsh proposition that even though state officials know that a person is in imminent danger of harm from a third party, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The Court in DeShaney explained: In the
recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense recognizing duty to furnish medical care to individual held in custody of police holding that the due process clause requires the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to suspects in police custody who have been injured while being apprehended by police holding that newspaper had sufficient interest to obtain access to police investigative files and autopsy report regarding suspect who had been shot to death while in police custody holding that the state police is a state agency