Passive prosecutorial readiness to respond does not satisfy enforcement duty

Evidence

The respondent states that he never at any time declined to make affidavit for a warrant or refused to listen to any complaint which was presented to him. That he stood ready and willing at all times to present witnesses before the grand jury. That if these complainants and their friends wanted the law enforced they should have made proper affidavit and complaint. This is an excuse often heard by those who lack the seal to actually, both to the letter and in the spirit, fulfill the duties of the office to which they have been elected. It is the duty of a Commonwealth’s Attorney to represent his client. He is the lawyer for the people. He has means and ways of ascertaining crime which his client has not. It is his duty to institute investigations, make inquiry of his aids and assistants, make use of his detective and investigator. In short, as the chief law officer of a district it is his job to keep down crime. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 47

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the legal-institutions thread and prosecutorial-discretion problem framing of this volume and Volumes 1-3. — connects to: Complaint-based housing enforcement shifts to proactive area-wide inspections — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 154; Complaint-only enforcement practices were replaced by proactive block enforcement in Baltimore — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 250