the inherently unfair and inequitable results [that] occur in the strict application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. On the other hand, the legislature recognizes that while a private party may readily be held liable for his torts within the chosen ambit of his activity, the area within which the government has the power to act for the public good is almost without limit, and therefore government should not have the duty to do everything that might be done. Section 41—4—2(A); see also Caillouette, 113 N.M. at 497, 827 P.2d at 1311 (refusing to find a waiver of immunity based on wrongful death statute and Article II, section 4 of New Mexico Constitution because to do so would eliminate the principle of sovereign immunity). Cf. Torres, 116 N.M. at 383-84, 862 P.2d at 1242-43 (<HOLDING>). We thus construe the language of Section
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that the duty to investigate applied to a specific murder suspect holding that jailers had no independent duty to investigate holding that officers owe a duty to the public to detect and investigate crime but owe no duty to individuals for negligent investigation holding that officers are not liable to additional victims of murderer because there is no duty to promptly investigate and solve every reported homicide