courts have refused to hold police officers to a universal duty of care, as Plaintiff has requested the Court to do here. See, e.g., City of Florence v. Chipman, 38 S.W.3d 387, 393 (Ky.2001). Instead, in order to establish a negligence claim against a public official under Kentucky law, “ ‘the complaint must allege a violation of a special duty owed to a specific identifiable person and not merely the breach of a general duty owed to the public at large.’ ” James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 893 (Ky.App. 2002) (quoting Fryman v. Harrison, 896 5.W.2d .Ct.App.2007) (“[Plaintiff] has failed to establish that the police owed him a duty to conduct the polygraph examination of Butler in a non-negligént manner.”); Pritchett v. City of Homestead, 855 So.2d 1164, 1165 (Fl.Dist.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>); Waskey v. Municipality of Anchorage, 909 P.2d
recognizing that negligent conduct of police investigations does not give rise to a cause of action because the duty to protect citizens and enforce the law is one owed generally to the public holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action recognizing the cause of action