Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a means for plaintiffs whose civil rights have been violated by government officials to sue for monetary compensation. However, the doctrine of qualified immunity hampers a plaintiff’s chances of success by blocking cases from going to trial and preventing government entities from paying monetary judgments on “insubstantial cases.” State-created danger doctrine is a judicially created exception that can overcome qualified immunity when a government official has caused or contributed to a danger that resulted in harm to that individual. The purpose of this doctrine is to hold officials accountable who were more than negligent. Enforcing this accountability is especially important when those officials operate within the realm of the criminal legal system. Police officers and law enforcement officials are in a position to create more harm than other government officials as they have state- sanctioned authority and potential access to weapons. Moreover, creating accountability through the exception likely would incentivize the officers to act with more care in the future. This Comment examines the state-created danger doctrine applied to cases where a government official’s decisions have resulted in the suicide of an individual. In cases of suicide, this analysis reveals that plaintiffs have failed to succeed even when the actions of government officials have seemingly surpassed negligence. These cases often fail because courts interpret the decisions of government officials to be inactions rather than actions. Courts find that the threat of suicide has always existed, regardless of decisions by officials that might have exacerbated this risk. By not characterizing these decisions as actions, the courts allow qualified immunity to block liability. This Comment proposes an innovative solution: a test that reinterprets the language of DeShaney, the originator of the doctrine, to interpret “actions” to include instances where a government official closed off and later reopened the harm to that individual through their decisions. This Comment will then apply this test to the fact patterns of leading suicide-related cases and those involving law enforcement officials to show how it results in more successes for plaintiffs and more consistent results overall. The Comment concludes that enforcing accountability in this sphere will better protect the public from the officials, operating in the law enforcement or general governmental sphere, who have endangered them by behaving in a way that surpasses negligence.

《民权法》第 1983 条规定，公民权利受到政府官员侵犯的原告可以通过诉讼要求经济赔偿。然而，合格豁免原则阻碍了案件进入审判阶段，并阻止政府实体对“非实质性案件”支付金钱判决，从而阻碍了原告胜诉的机会。国家创造的危险原则是一种司法创造的例外，当政府官员造成或助长了对个人造成伤害的危险时，它可以克服有条件的豁免权。该学说的目的是追究疏忽大意的官员的责任。当这些官员在刑事法律体系范围内运作时，加强这种问责制尤为重要。警察和执法人员比其他政府官员有能力制造更多的伤害，因为他们拥有国家认可的权力并可能获得武器。此外，通过例外情况建立问责制可能会激励官员在未来更加谨慎行事。本评论审查了适用于政府官员的决定导致个人自杀的案件的国家创造的危险学说。在自杀案件中，该分析表明，即使政府官员的行为似乎超过了疏忽，原告也未能成功。这些案件往往失败，因为法院将政府官员的决定解释为不作为而不是作为。法院认定自杀的威胁一直存在，不管官员的决定是否加剧了这种风险。通过不将这些决定定性为行动，法院允许有条件的豁免权来阻止责任。这条评论提出了一个创新的解决方案：一个重新解释语言的测试该学说的创始人德沙尼 ( DeShaney)将“行动”解释为包括政府官员关闭并随后通过其决定重新对个人造成伤害的情况。然后，本评论会将此测试应用于与自杀相关的主要案件和涉及执法人员的案件的事实模式，以展示它如何为原告带来更多的成功以及整体上更一致的结果。该评论的结论是，在这一领域加强问责制将更好地保护公众免受执法或一般政府领域的官员的伤害，因为他们的行为超出了疏忽的范围而危及他们。