What is the test for a police officer to have an affirmative duty to detain a person who has been found to be intoxicated in the street?

In ruling on respondent's demurrer, the trial court relied on Stout v. City of Porterville (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 937, 196 Cal.Rptr. 301. Appellant contends that Stout is distinguishable from the facts of this case. We disagree. In Stout, an officer temporarily detained the plaintiff, who was walking along Main Street in the City of Porterville at 1:30 in the morning, to question him [57 Cal.App.4th 1022] regarding the reason for his presence and the state of his sobriety. The plaintiff alleged that at the time he was voluntarily intoxicated and unable to care for himself. After questioning, the officer released the plaintiff who was later injured when struck by a vehicle driven by a third person. (Id. at p. 940, 196 Cal.Rptr. 301.) The plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Porterville and the officer alleging that his injuries were due to the officer's failure to arrest him or place him in the custody of a detoxification facility. (Ibid.) The plaintiff contended that the officer had an affirmative duty to protect him from injury because they had a special relationship, and because the officer returned him to a position of peril when he terminated the detention. (Id. at p. 941, 196 Cal.Rptr. 301.)