In what cases is it NOT true that a peace officer must act to prevent a crime?

The assertion that a peace officer is not required to act to prevent a crime when only property is in jeopardy is grounded in the legal understanding of a peace officer's duties. In many jurisdictions, law enforcement officers have a duty to prevent serious crimes, particularly when a person's safety is at risk. However, when the crime in question involves only property—such as vandalism or theft of non-violent nature—law enforcement may not have the same obligation to intervene immediately, especially if there is no imminent threat to personal safety or if it does not warrant an emergency response.

Furthermore, peace officers must often prioritize response to crimes that involve threats to life or personal injury over those that are strictly property-related. This distinction acknowledges the various factors involved in law enforcement, including the nature of the crime, its severity, and the potential consequences for human life.

In contrast, officers do have duties to act in situations involving misdemeanors, criminal activity occurring in different jurisdictions, or even while off duty, especially in instances where human safety is at stake.