(Supreme Court rules) Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments.

Gonzales contended that police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband, who took the three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order.
...
Gonzales reached him on his cell phone, and he told her that he had taken the girls to an amusement park in nearby Denver. Gonzales contends that police should have gone to the amusement park or contacted Denver police.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_restraining_orders

[Kagemusha]

1. It's unfortunate but hey, this is the law, always has been

In the US this has been how the law's been read for over two hundred years. Wasn't gonna change now.

[craychek]

4. responsibility is also part of the law

If a man has a restraining order put against him and he breaks it repeatedly, to my knowledge, he is to be arrested. I'm taking a wild guess and saying that they didn't do that. I don't know all the facts about this case, but if threats were being made as well against her and she reported them, and the police did nothing, that is also negligence on their part(or at least I woudl think so).

[K-W]

17. Right, but the law is specific about who is legally responsible

just being responsible doesn't make one legally responsible.

And the same thing with negligence. Simply the existence of negligence doesn't prove actionable negligence.

[saigon68]

54. GET YOUR OWN GUN

And if you are lucky enough to live in a State that permits it. Get a concealed Carry permit and make it a "PERMANENT PART" of your wardrobe.

[craychek]

2. That sounds lovely

So instead of forcing the police to DO their jobs and enforce court rulings they now get to sit on their asses, do nothing, and be negligent, and not face any penalties. Restraining orders are now completely worthless... awesome...

[Journeyman]

5. My daughter had a restraining order against a guy who tried to kill her...

Despite repeated violations of the order, the police told me they could do nothing against the guy until either they caught him in the act of violating the terms, or he harmed her.

When the assault case against him went to court, the judge threw it out because my daughter answered the phone when her assailant called "to try to talk it out." She hung up on him, but the court ruled she "voluntarily" continued her association (because of his phone call), so they wouldn't pursue the case against him. And this, despite his breaking the restraining order to make the call.

All this happened well before December 12, 2000, so my disgust -- indeed hatred -- of the American judicial system has deep roots.

[mom cat]

29. Welcome to DU. You make a very good point. I wonder if the last name

Gonzalez had not been Hispanic, if there had been more prompt response to the violation of the restraining order.

[donco6]

32. But sometimes we put the police between rock/hard place.

Douglas County, where this incident took place, is a bastion of anti-tax conservatives. I don't know if this is true, but what if the police are short handed because the citizens won't approve taxes to provide an adequate police force. And due to this short-handedness, they can't perform the duties even THEY admit are necessary (they wouldn't have asked for the taxes otherwise, right?) So now they can be sued because they didn't provide adequate protection, but the people wouldn't let them provide adequate protection because they wouldn't provide enough cops.

Doesn't sound completely fair to me.

[smb]

53. Yeah, Right

I'll bet they aren't too "short-handed" to run speed traps.

[donco6]

62. Pfft.

Whatever.

[zinndependence]

3. what!?!?

why should they even bother to TRY to enforce restraining orders now...I mean, restraining orders were already a joke, now even more so! So what recourse to victims of domestic violence have....I'm sure many already feel like they can't rely on the police for protection. I guess she should have blown the s.o.b. away when he came on her property. (I guess that is what the republicans are trying to protect...gun ownership, personal protection and all....) (I'm being sarcastic here.)

[drencrom]

7. police

It's like the police haven't changed a bit.

[redqueen]

19. Hi drencrom

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[meganmonkey]

21. Love your name, zinndependence!

welcome to DU

:toast:

[PermanentRevolution]

6. That's how it's always been...

The courts have ruled time and time again that citizens don't have a right to police protection. in "DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services," the SC ruled that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect citizens from harm.

People have, in the past, been unable to sue:

When 911 systems have been shut down for maintenance

When a known stalker kills someone

When police pull over but don't arrest a drunk driver who goes on to run someone over

When a known, violently unstable cop shoots a driver pulled over for an inadequate muffler

When authorities know in advance of a plan to murder someone but take no action to stop it

When houses burn down because the fire department doesn't respond in time

Laws and cases in all 50 states plus D.C. uphold the basic premise that the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens from harm. Makes ya feel safe, huh?

[havocmom]

11. Yes the police basically draw the yellow outline of the body then sorta

look for possible suspects in too many cases. The courts have a long history of deciding there is no right to expect protection.

A 911 operator in Tucson, taking a call from an elderly lady who called while holding a gun on a young man who broke into her home, told the woman to put the gun down and wait for the police office who would be en rounte soon. The woman, knowing there had been several break ins involving attacks on elderly women in that part of time explained she would put the gun down when a cop had the guy in cuffs.

The 911 operator kept insisting the woman put her gun down so the officer would not be in danger when he arrived!

The woman held her ground and her gun and the man was taken into custody.

The 911 operator was basically trying to get the woman to give up her life and didn't understand the problem. :eyes:

[Double T]

8. Restraining Orders Have Always Been Pretty Much Useless

[renaissanceguy]

9. In Illinois, it's close to impossible

to get a restraining order.

[slackmaster]

28. In California it's almost ridiculously easy to get one in family court

Getting a temporary RO against an estranged family member, lover, spouse, roommate, or friend takes less than four hours and costs nothing. Family court commissioners and judges hand them out to anyone who comes in and makes a halfway credible claim that they are being harassed or threatened. Written documentation helps but is not required for the TRO.

Getting an RO made permanent costs money and takes some serious evidence.

Of course like anywhere else an RO is just ink on paper here. For example, although someone who is restrained is required by law to relinquish possession of all firearms, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the person actually gets the guns out of his or her house. I know someone who used a gun on the job (he was an MP for the Navy). His estranged girlfriend got an RO after they had an argument. She called the police to complain that he kept a gun in his house (not on a military base). The PD basically laughed at her and said "Call us back if he threatens you with the gun."

[MrSandman]

50. Magistrates issue TRO's to both parties here...

Then have a Family Court Hearing within 10-14 days.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. And the point of law enforcement would be?

If the police have no actual obligation to enforce the law then why have them?

The message they have just sent to the people of this country is:

The police will not help you. The only justice you will ever receive is that which you take yourself.

[havocmom]

12. To draw those yellow outlines around bodies, near as I can tell

Oh, they do a bit of harassing sometimes to.

Before ya all flame me, I am not anti-cop. Have a bunch in the family. Just know the system does not work well. Especially does not work well in protecting victims of domestic violance.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. The system does not work

because it protects and encourages bad cops and pisses on the good ones. I am not anti-cop, but I have no use for "law enforcement".

[watrwefitinfor]

13. "And the point of law enforcement would be?"

Protecting property. Always.

Wat

[MountainLaurel]

16. Which explains this decision somewhat

As well as legal attitudes toward domestic violence. Women are still considered little more than the property of their husband or male partner, and abuse is therefor "family business". So, the owner's property really isn't being harmed (except by the owner, but that's his perogative).

:grr:

[davepc]

35. Where are women defined as "property" anywhere in the legal code?

Just one example will do.

[MountainLaurel]

36. Well, until very recently

In most state laws, there was no such thing as spousal rape, because you couldn't rape your wife: Sex was her marital duty, and if she wasn't willing, too bad. As you can see from some of the articles below, the situation hasn't changed much.


http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701

http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/05/03/69230536.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special12/articles/0114spousalrape14.html

[redqueen]

18. Exactly.

Welcome to DU, Wat. :hi:

[watrwefitinfor]

26. belated thank you, redqueen n/t

[Trillo]

27. Thanks.

I was contemplating the seeming disparate patterns of logic between this ruling and the SC file-trading decision.

Your answer of "protecting property" provides the underlying similar pattern.

But then how does one reconcile "protecting property" with the recent eminent-domain SC decision, where property is only protected if its use maximizes revenue?

(I know this wanders far afield from the original topic: sorry 'bout that)

[watrwefitinfor]

38. Whose property?

But then how does one reconcile "protecting property" with the recent eminent-domain SC decision, where property is only protected if its use maximizes revenue?

Consider: Whose property?

And is not revenue a form of property?

And has it not ever been thus?

None of which means that the state (police, judges, lawmakers) will not protect individual life if it is to their interest and if nothing conflicts (e.g., a bank robbery, a cup of coffee...).

At any rate, that's how it looks from my perch.

Wat

[Trillo]

43. "And has it not ever been thus?"

I don't think it has been 'represented' thusly to the average citizen in modern times.

http://www.richardgregory.org.nyud.net:8090/papers/brainmodels/brain_model_fig2.gif

And further back, before 'civilization', the answer would be "No."

[watrwefitinfor]

49. Of course you are correct.

And further back, before 'civilization', the answer would be "No."

I would not quarrel with that. Got a little carried away there, didn't I. :-)

Wat

[davepc]

34. How are the police supposed to be a private bodyguard service?

If you get a restraining order you also get 24/7 police protection as well?

Its up to the individual to take measures to ensure their own safety.

Of course people like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy center want to take those measures away from people.

[Jacobin]

39. When the restraining order is violated, you arrest the perp.

Time and again, restraining orders are violated, the police are called, they file a report and drive away.

That's one way to do it.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. BullShit!

The police need to just DO THEIR JOB. In the instance before the court, they just couldn't be bothered.

A similar situation arose back in the 80's in my neck of the woods. I complete loon started shooting motorists outside his house. The police cordoned off SOME of the roads, but left some open allowing people to drive to their deaths.

Their excuse was no one told them to close those roads, something that should have been completely obvious even to someone of George Bush's limitied intelligence.

Let me repeat: The police STOOD by a watched people drive into a kill zone and did NOTHING to stop the unsuspecting drivers. Closing the roads would NOT have put the police in danger.

When sued, the court ruled for the police saying that law enforcement had no obligation to enforce the law or protect the public. End of story.

And spare me the dig at the Brady Center. There are too many goddamned handguns in this country in the hands of too many mentally ill, stupid or just trigger-happy fools.

[truthisfreedom]

14. well, then i guess the Supremes will have to eventually examine cases

where someone with a restraining order against an estranged husband shoots him as he approaches thier kids, because this decision places a chill on the definition of what "policing" is.

[BOHICA06]

15. You are responsible for your own sorry butt !

Sincerely

The Supremes

P.S. Look to the 2nd Ammendment to do this.

[Patty Diana]

20. more GOP fascism_____women are shit to these fuckers

Connecticut passed a law way back making it a law that cops had to enforce restraining orders. Their hospitals were filled with female vegetables___all products of abusive husbands.

[Indy Lurker]

22. This is why firearms need to be available

This case clearly re-states the fact that you are responsible for your own safety.

Of course in IL you have to wait 6 weeks to get your firearms card, purchase a gun, then another 3 days to cool off before you can take it home to protect yourself.

Oh, and of course you can't carry your gun outside of your home. Outside your home, you have to depend on the police for your protection.

[thinkingwoman]

30. a pump shotgun

is a very effective enforcement tool.

Several years ago I had a restraining order against someone for two years. Although I notified local law enforcement, I never for a moment counted on them to keep me and my children safe. That's what the shotgun is for.

[msanthrope]

31. Yes, and easier to handle than a handgun, IMHO. n/t

[thinkingwoman]

45. agreed, and...

less chance for error. It's hard to miss with one of those.

[jody]

48. Shotguns are indeed the choice for home self defense but they are

not very convenient for use outside the home. Handguns are the best arm for outside the home if the person feels that is necessary.

I see no reason a woman must be a prisoner in her own home just because she is threatened by someone against which she has a restraining order.

[NickB79]

41. Ditto

Of course, if we're lucky we'll see a few particular DUer's pop up pretty soon to tell you that guns are bad and evil, irrespective of this ruling.

[jody]

23. Governments are not obligated to protect an individual unless that

person is in custody. That's what SCOTUS said again in this decision.

That's precisely why the unalienable right of self defense is so important. The best way to exercise that right is by bearing arms and the most effective, efficient arm for that job is a firearm. A handgun is the most convenient firearm for self defense.

[genieroze]

44. How many women are in jail for protecting themselves?

Most municipalities say don't take the law into your own hands, let the courts and police protect you. So WTF is this decision?

[jody]

46. I don’t know but in 2003, law-abiding citizens killed 246 criminals and

probably used arms in self-defense, hundreds of thousands of times against criminals.

See the FBI’s "Crime in the United States"
Table 2.16
Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen 1999-2003
1999 192
2000 164
2001 222
2002 233
2003 246

I wish every judge that issues a restraining order would also issue a government provided handgun, a concealed carry permit, and provide training to the person in particular women. If necessary, deputize the woman as an officer of the court so that she has legal backing to enforce the order.

[saigon68]

55. See # 54 above

[Indy Lurker]

47. You are always allowed to protect yourself

But it must be from immediate danger. You must be stopping a crime in progress.

You can't shoot someone because they beat you yesterday, and threatened to beat you again. Threating to be you again, is assault, but you can't shoot someone for it.

It also depends state to state.

In IL, if you are in your home (actually abode, so hotel rooms are covered), you can use deadly force if it is your only option to stop a felony in progress.

The police are usually looking for you to say something like: "I was in fear for my life, and had no where to run."

[genieroze]

52. tell that to the women serving time or the ones who are dead.

A restraining order is suppose to protect people, men too if they are abused. If the police don't have to enforce it. it's just toilet paper. Many abused women don't know how to use or want a gun. If a man beats his wife and says he is going to beat her again, that's not a threat, it's a fact that he will beat her again. Abusive people don't stop being abusive because of a piece of paper that will never be enforced. The cops need to enforce a restraining order in order for it to work and throw these animals in jail for breaking it.

Here is a good site about abuse.
http://endabuse.org/

[sandnsea]

59. Gee, and you're okay with that?

We spend $400 billion on our military every year, but we aren't safe to walk down the street and you think that's a logical state of affairs. Does it occur to you that perhaps we've just got things bassackwards in this country and spending all of our money protecting trade for 100 corporate fatcats is the problem?

[jody]

60. Yes it's OK with me. I don't expect the state to take care of me from the

cradle to the grave. The very essence of freedom is being responsible for one's self and self-defense is the most basic right.

[sandnsea]

61. Wonderful

Children playing at the local park should pack? Grandma in the nursing home? Teen-agers driving the strip or partying at the swimming hole? Speaking of which, we just had a shooting in very rural Oregon Saturday night, as well as an unarmed teen-ager shot dead by the cops because they don't know who is and isn't armed anymore. You want MORE of this??? People like you just make me spit nails, you start with your own gun obsession and build your rationalizations from there.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/27/b3.cr.digest.0627.html

[jody]

63. Go ahead and spit nails but be careful where you spit because that

could be viewed as an assault.

Apparently you don't support the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

If you are ever assaulted by a criminal, I hope you have thought in advance about what you plan to do. If an armed law-abiding citizen tries to come to your aid, I hope you have enough faith in your position on RKBA to strongly refuse their aid, simply give up and beg for mercy from the criminal or die knowing you were true to your own moral standards.

Be advised however, if I were the citizen, I would ignore you and do everything in my power to eliminate the criminal as a threat to you.

Have a nice day :hi:

[sandnsea]

64. Psssht, Amend the Constitution

That's why our founding fathers gave us the right, times change.

I work towards creating a society where people don't become criminals because they haven't been brainwashed into believing everybody is evil and it's all dog eat dog anyway. As far as stopping one human from hurting another, it requires the same kind of decency that prevents one from causing harm in the first place. I question whether someone who is convinced the population is so evil that they MUST have a gun actually has that kind of common decency in the first place. I don't have a problem with guns or even most gun owners. I have a problem with gun obsessed pscyhos whose affair with their guns is the most important thing on the planet.

[nolabels]

24. The government, courts and law enforcement are so effing backwards........

That I was just wondering why there is not full blown revolt going on now. They let murderers and rapists out of the pen so they can make room for weak knee drug addicts and petty thieves. They don't have the time enforce court orders or other means of crime prevention but can waste their time and thousands of others valuable time in inconsequential decorum and ceremony. They all seem to feel they are answerable to no one and do as they please.

Friday, June 17, 2005
High-speed chase shuts down 1-10 for 12 hours, stranding thousands

Why did a high speed police chase that ended in a crash and gunfire close down the freeway for 12 hours? I-10 was closed yesterday afternoon, creating 20 mile traffic jams that frustrated drivers. We have more on why police say the road had to be closed for so long.

23-year-old Justin Daniel Kirk, the murder suspect police were chasing at speeds up to ninety miles per hour, started firing at police through his back window just a few miles before the chase ended.

When Kirk crashed his car on the freeway, police saw him grab a handgun. That's when they fired multiple rounds at him. Kirk wasn't hurt - he was wearing a bulletproof vest.

The dramatic end to the dangerous chase happened right in front of drivers.
(snip)
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3490207&nav=9qrxbBBC

[HuckleB]

25. Unless a restraining order puts someone behind bars...

how could police guarantee protection? Or do we want a body guard division added to every police force in the country?

[silverweb]

33. Restraining orders are a joke.

They aren't worth the paper they're written on. All they really do is tell the potential attacker exactly where to find his victim(s), thus making his stalking and scheming easier.

[mbperrin]

37. So no writ of mandamus is enforceable?

Amazing. I found out years ago that a RO is useless, and I also found out that brake fluid is a great paint remover. It's an exercise in behaviorism. You do this, your paint disappears. Every time. And since a lot of vain so and so's can't stand for THEIR property to be touched or damaged, it's amazingly effective. Very difficult to repaint, because the fluid gets in the pores of the metal. REALLY expensive repair job,takes a minute or less to do.

I highly suggest dealing with assholes in a way that doesn't involve bodily harm or the chance of your getting hurt. This is a good method.

Or was in this case.

[MichiDem]

51. When a restraining order is given

is about the only time that I could see giving out a gun without a 15
day (minimum) waiting period.

[FlaGranny]

56. Over the years

I've learned that it is "everyone for him/herself." We have no right of protection and we have no "right" to assistance in case of disaster. You are literally on your own in this world and it is best to plan accordingly.

[Coventina]

57. Thanks supremes, for advertising to abusers to keep on abusing!

"Hey, no one can stop you, so go ahead with that murder-suicide thing you've got planned!"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. If I neglect to fix a bug in a customer of ours, I get fired.

WHY should it be different for cops? Do THEY get exclusive rights to goof off at work?

[St. Jarvitude]

65. This is the correct decision

While restraining orders are in horrible disarray, the issue of enforcement of restraining orders is nowhere near a federal matter. Nothing in the Constitution could be construed even by a very loose interpretation as guaranteeing a right to police protection.

Yes, this is a very tragic case and the police should have done more to protect the girls. But there is nothing in the Constitution at present which forces the police to do anything. They can, and do, ignore 911 calls and complaints all the time - it's up to the states to decide how to deal with cases like this.

Many of you are losing sight of the Supreme Court's duty - to interpret the Constitution. In this case, this decision is fully justified because the Constitution provides no such protection. Colorado's state government is responsible for enforcing its laws (in this case, the Colorado law that says officers shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order).

In this case, the most appropriate action for Ms. Gonzales would be to file suit against the police department and deal with this grossly inappropriate inaction by the police in civil court.