Posted on 06/27/2005 7:19:43 PM PDT by sactodan
The United States Supreme Court today ruled in the case TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES. This case is about a woman who had a restraining order against her estranged husband. ...when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.
The court ruled in favor of the Town of Castle Rock. Here is a brief excerpt of the decision which can be viewed in its entirety at the Supreme Court Website. Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute’s direction to “use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or even to “arrest . . . or . . . seek a warrant.” A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that—despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated—the violation’s circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance.
It means that this woman did not have an expectation that the police would protect her even though she had a restraining order. It also means that women who presently have a restraining order against a violent spouse may not be safe.
It means that the government cannot protect you despite the fact that they promulgate that myth. Oh after you are dead, they will come take a report and the coroner will carry your body away.
I expect gun sales in Colorado to jump dramatically.
Police are not omnicent. They can't prevent crime before it happens.
Does Stephen King know about this?
We do expect the police to respond to people breaking the law. Still, I don't want to hold the police responsible for this.
But from a different point of view, a restraining order is something issued by the courts. Funny that this woman couldn't get a single police officer to respond to a violation of a court order, while in Florida Judge Greer was able to turn out a platoon of police to make sure his orders were carried out.
I have trouble with Scalia's claim that the legislative intent of "a mandatory arrest if possible or a warrant if not" wasn't emphatic enough. What is his solution, for the legislature to end each such statement with the clause "and we really, really mean it"?
I was hopeful for a different decision in this case but based on other recent decisions, not surprised. I was disappointed that only 2 justices, Stevens and Ginsburg, dissented. So now the court has ruled that if you have a restraining order, the police MAY, or have the OPTION of, arresting that person if they THINK the order has been violated. Doesn't that make you feel safe now? I guess if a woman's kids are missing and she has an idea about where they are, the Supreme Court would prefer she go after them instead of letting the police handle it.
There are two other points to think about. The taxpayers of Castle Rock, CO funded this court battle. Now instead of paying to settle the lawsuit they can pay for the lawyers and whatever else they feel necessary to provide for their own personal security instead. Also this case never went to the Colorado Supreme court as the dissenting judges indicated it should have. It went from the Colorado Appeals court to the US Supreme court. Anyone know why? Just curious. This is another decision in the mounting pile of decisions that will hopefully make court appointments a major issue in future elections, starting with the 2006 US Senate elections.
A restraining order is not an order for the Police to provide an armed guard. The police have an obligation to respond to any violation of the law ( in this case, the restraining order) that they are aware of. There is no special priority placed on enforcing restraining orders.
To rule otherwise would ultimately force a situation where half the population would have to become police to guard citizens against possible future violations of the law
No! but if a panicked mom calls and then shows a document preventing one parent from easy access to the children, then the cops should take better notice and at LEAST try to find the kidnapper!
Ever since courts started issuing restraining orders as a matter of course in divorce cases with contested child custody for mere allegations of abuse, the restraining order has become "Oh, every woman has one of those" as far as the police are concerned.
Restraining orders are practically meaningless now. Like the police, who are purely reactive, they only provide the illusion of safety.
The 'restraining order' needs to be recognized as a court ordered document to the target that should they come into contact with the plaintiff and make further offense, lethal force can be immediately used against them to prevent it.
The woman whose children were taken and later murdered by her husband should have been protected by the court with authorization to kill the man if he should attempt to abscond with the kids. Her restraining order should have served as notice that if he tried to take the kids, he'd be dead.
Restraining orders are handed out like candy on Halloween and are pretty much worthless other than making sure that the soon to be ex-wife gets the house and kids. There have been studies that show that these things actually increase the level of violence rather than decrease it. In any case like all laws criminals will ignore them and the rest of us will suffer under them.
As a side note, most cases where the parent kills the kids is the mother and good luck getting the courts to take away her rights to see her kids.
Exactly. Under such a rule, restraining orders could be given out pretty freely in cases where they would not restrict the recipient from doing anything he had a legal right to do anyway. For example, if a woman lives in a house in which a man has no legal property interest, a restraining order which simply warned a man that if he is shot dead in that house it will be presumed self-defense, would not infringe the man's rights in any way. It should be more difficult to get restraining orders that could prevent a man from going places where he would otherwise have reason to go. It would be bad if a woman who wanted her ex dead could file a restraining order forbidding him from being within 50 feet of wherever she happened to be at the time, stalk him, kill him, and claim it was self-defense because he got within 50 feet of her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.