Is a public entity liable for failure to provide adequate police protection?

Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to at least create a question of fact on foreseeability of the harm suffered. However, in analyzing the policy considerations . bearing on the question of duty it is important to keep in sight what defendants are alleged to have done or not done to cause plaintiff's injuries. Despite plaintiff's contrary contentions on appeal, the allegations of the claim and the complaint are twofold: inadequate police security and failure to warn of known hazards. Defendants presented no evidence to refute either point. However, as the trial court correctly concluded, defendants are immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection. (Stone v. State of California, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 929, 165 Cal.Rptr. 339.) Section 845 reads: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."