Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Restraining orders scrutinized in wake of Supreme Court ruling
The Daily Inter Lake ^ | Jul 11, 2005 | CHERY SABOL

Posted on 07/11/2005 6:30:34 PM PDT by claudiustg

A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling won't change how local officers enforce restraining orders, but it concerns at least one judge.

Based on a Colorado case, the June 27 ruling says that police can't be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order. In the Colorado case, a woman made repeated phone calls and paid a visit to police within a few hours, asking them to find her estranged husband against whom she had a restraining order. She thought he had taken their three daughters. The man eventually turned up at the police department with a shotgun he had just purchased. Police shot and killed him, and the bodies of his murdered daughters were found inside his truck.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the woman was not entitled to have officers enforce the order.

The ruling is "pretty darn dangerous," said Flathead County Justice of the Peace David Ortley.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailyinterlake.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: restraining; supreme

1 posted on 07/11/2005 6:30:35 PM PDT by claudiustg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Those restraining orders are two edged swords.

In instances like this, more probably should have been done to protect those in danger. On the other hand, restraining orders are low hanging fruit on the tree of criminal justice, when the wife wants the home and the guy out of it.


2 posted on 07/11/2005 6:33:24 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Well, that is a large part of the problem - so many of them are bogus that it's hard for the cops to take them seriously.

If folks were really interested in helping victims of domestic violence - they would work to restore creditability to the restraining order process. But they don't. So, it occurs to me that it's something else they're after.
3 posted on 07/11/2005 7:50:31 PM PDT by Fido969 ("The story is true" - Dan Rather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Yes, I agree.


4 posted on 07/11/2005 7:59:39 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Enforcing restraint orders doesn't bring money into city treasure chests. In fact, guarding citizens under death threats would cost money.

It's better that some serfs should die so the tax collectors can be used to write speeding tickets and issue summons for not trimming bushes.

On the other hand, elite functionaries should be provided with 24/7 police protection at taxpayer expense.


5 posted on 07/12/2005 6:46:20 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Marxism has not only failed to promote human freedom, it has failed to produce food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

What the Supreme Court decided on is a completely random enforcement of these restraining orders. So, our sheriff's department has said they will enforce them, but will the police department? Maybe the officers will flip a coin when the call comes in. Who knows?


6 posted on 07/12/2005 6:55:51 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson