USSC rules police not required to enforce restraining orders-Women Betraye

[papau]

Time to forget restraining orders and to go back to being a "more patient wife"? Or a website where women could post the names of unresponsive police officers to embarrass and perhaps force a change in attitude? Or perhaps just shoot the husband and take your chances in court?


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-buel4jul04,0,2335211.story?track=tottext

COMMENTARY
Battered Women Betrayed
By Sarah M. Buel
Sarah Buel is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin.

July 4, 2005

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police are not required to enforce restraining orders, even if state law mandates that they do so.<snip>

For one thing, the ruling threatens to sabotage many hard-won gains. Principal among these was the advent, in the late 1970s, of civil restraining orders, warning batterers to cease their abuse and triggering police investigation and arrest for violations. In response to widespread police under-enforcement of these orders in the early days, 19 states — including Colorado, where this case originated — passed laws in the 1980s and 1990s mandating that police arrest batterers if restraining orders were violated. <snip>

But in fact, the plaintiff in this case, Jessica Gonzales, did exactly what she was supposed to. As soon as her estranged husband absconded with their three daughters — in violation of a court's restraining order — she called the Castle Rock, Colo., police. She called six times over an eight-hour period — including numerous calls after she had reached her husband on his cellphone and confirmed that he had the children with him.

She repeatedly begged the police to enforce the restraining order and retrieve her daughters, citing the father's extremely violent and unstable history — to no avail. Over and over again, she was told to call back later. At 3:20 a.m., the father appeared at the police station, where he opened fire on officers and was shot and killed. The dead bodies of the three girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were found in the back of his pickup.

What's stunning about the Supreme Court's decision is its reliance on Orwellian doublespeak. Even though Colorado specifically mandates that a police officer "shall use every reasonable means to enforce" a restraining order, the court concluded that the legislative intent of the Colorado law was actually to permit officer discretion.<snip>

[acmejack]

1. WTF?

Are these people out of their minds?

[Tace]

3. Yes -- You Noticed?

: )

[punpirate]

6. In a word...

... yes, they are. The law is clear enough to mandate action by the police. Failure to take action is a violation of the state's law. Police discretion does not include the right to complete and abject failure to follow that law.

If a restraining order has the power of the law and a court's agreement with that law behind it, the police have no right to disregard that court and that law. A restraining order is not a simple administrative matter. It is issued by a duly authorized court. It is an instruction and an order to the person restrained, and the police have an obligation under the court's direction to follow the court's mandate.

On edit, I should add that this ruling has a deleterious effect in more than just the narrow sense of restraining orders. It, in effect, says that the police may, at their discretion, ignore court orders, which, effectively, places the police above the courts, rather than maintaining police subservience to the courts. That's contrary to the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This is, quite simply, shameful.

[happyslug]

2. Here is the Case she is talking about:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf

[indepat]

Is not a preponderance of Supreme Court decisions a betrayal ?

[yankeeinlouisiana]

4. Why was she told "to call

back later"? If they weren't going to do anything, why bother. Or maybe the next shift would have been more sympathetic?

[enough]

5. Domestic terror

snip>

The Justice Department reports that each day in the U.S., four women are murdered by their spouses or partners, and thousands more are maimed or severely injured. If foreign terrorists were killing four Americans per day, the F-16s would have long since been fired up and troops readied for battle. But when the terrorist is a current or former partner, the high court offers no assistance.

snip>

[FizzFuzz]

7. Couldn't be clearer than this.

A very ladylike death.

[China_cat]

8. I don't know if it was in your link or not

but I saw this woman on GMA. The police did not even notify her that her kids were dead. They notified the ex's girlfriend who called the mother to tell her.

Oh, and you'll get slammed on this one. I opened it up when it first happened and got quickly and repeatedly told that the police do NOT have the responsibility for enforcing anything they don't want to. Equating expecting enforcement of restraining orders to 'providing bodyguards'.

Of course, I never did get an answer when I asked if, since the police are not required to protect anyone, why are we REQUIRED to pay their salaries.

[papau]

9. Thanks for the info - I do not understand how any could slam you on this

This is as close to 100% nuts as anything coming out of the USSC that I have ever seen.

[mongo]

10. I wish that the SC had ruled the other way

because lack of enforcement of restraining orders is a big problem - and there is some middle ground here that has not been reached.

And certainly, the dispatcher, deputies and the police chief involved should be sitting in jail now for dereliction of duty.

But if the SC had ruled the other way, it would have opened a can of worms.

Certainly, the town of Castle Rock had adequate manpower to respond to the call (over the 8 frigging hour period), and they did not. Does this entitle the woman to damages in a civil suit? Most likely.

But consider that large portions of America do not even have 24 hour policing. Is any victim of a crime (or their families) entitled to damages if they call the police and the police do not show up in time? Is someone entitled to damages if there is not adequate manpower to answer the call?

What about other discretionary powers the police might have? If there are two crimes going on at the same time, and two patrol cars in operation, most likely, both cars will be dispatched to the more serious crime, as cops like to have backup. Would the town be liable in a civil suit for the crime not responded to in a timely manner?

Let me say this again - I REALLY WISH THE SC HAD RULED THE OTHER WAY. There is a middle ground here, a point at which the police force becomes so negligent in their duty, that they should be liable for civil damages. But if the SC had ruled in this woman's favor, it would have opened the door for a civil suit by every victim of every crime.

[theshadow]

11. The decision is important only if you fixate on....

... the issue of suing in federal court. The decision focused on the nuance of Colorado law and how it addresses restraining orders, the issue of police discretion even in mandatory arrest situations, and whether the victim could sue in US court based on violation of the 14th amendment. It does not create a barrier to suing on other grounds, or in state court.

I'm not defending the negligence of the police in this case. I just think it's an over-reaction to say that the mandatory arrest system has been destroyed because of it.