Name of the Case: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 2005. 2. Facts: After her divorce, Jessica Gonzales was granted a restraining order against her ex-husband by a state trial court in Colorado. The restraining order prohibited the ex-husband from disturbing Ms. Gonzales and her three daughters and ordered him to stay at least 100 yards away from the family home. The ex-husband / father was granted visits with his children on alternating weekends, for two weeks in the summer and for occasional mid-week visits if prearranged between the parents. Less than three weeks after the court made the restraining order permanent, Mr. Gonzales took the three daughters from in front of the family home without prior approval of their mother.
…show more content…
Gonzales contacted the police at 10:10 pm and stated her children were not yet home. The police now told her to wait until midnight. She called the police again at midnight and told them that her children were still missing. She went to her ex-husband’s residence but he was not there. She called the police again at 12:10 am and was told that an officer would meet her there. When no officer arrived, she went to the police station and filed an incident report. The officer who took the report did not make any “reasonable effort” to find the children. At 3:20 am the ex-husband showed up at the police station and began shooting with a semiautomatic pistol. The police returned fire and killed him. Upon searching his truck, police found the bodies of his three children whom he had previously murdered. Ms. Gonzales brought legal action claiming that the town of Castle Rock violated the Due Process Clause by failing to properly respond to violations of restraining orders and by tolerating the non-enforcement of such orders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was granted by the District Court. The District Court stated that Gonzales had neither a substantive nor a procedural due process claim. A Court …show more content…
3. Main Issue: Does an individual’s protection under a restraining order constitute a property right for purposes of a claim under the Due Process Clause? 4. Court Deciding: Supreme Court of the United States. 5. Decision: The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. 6. Principle of Law: An individual’s entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order does not constitute a property interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause. 7. Analysis: This case addresses the important issue of whether or not certain statutes allow for broader or narrower police discretion in their enforcement. The dissenting judges believed that the State of Colorado’s intention regarding restraining orders was made clear by the statutory language and that the state intended to abrogate the officers’ discretion when it stated that law enforcement officers “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.” This has led to debate regarding mandatory arrests in domestic violence cases. The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the “widespread refusal or failure of police officers to remove persons involved in episodes of domestic violence was presented to the legislature as the main reasoning for tightening the law so as to require enforcement of restraining orders by mandatory arrest and custody.” (Nearing, 295 Or., at 709, 670 P .2d, at
Gonzales contacted the police at 10:10 pm and stated her children were not yet home. The police now told her to wait until midnight. She called the police again at midnight and told them that her children were still missing. She went to her ex-husband’s residence but he was not there. She called the police again at 12:10 am and was told that an officer would meet her there. When no officer arrived, she went to the police station and filed an incident report. The officer who took the report did not make any “reasonable effort” to find the children. At 3:20 am the ex-husband showed up at the police station and began shooting with a semiautomatic pistol. The police returned fire and killed him. Upon searching his truck, police found the bodies of his three children whom he had previously murdered. Ms. Gonzales brought legal action claiming that the town of Castle Rock violated the Due Process Clause by failing to properly respond to violations of restraining orders and by tolerating the non-enforcement of such orders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was granted by the District Court. The District Court stated that Gonzales had neither a substantive nor a procedural due process claim. A Court …show more content…
3. Main Issue: Does an individual’s protection under a restraining order constitute a property right for purposes of a claim under the Due Process Clause? 4. Court Deciding: Supreme Court of the United States. 5. Decision: The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. 6. Principle of Law: An individual’s entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order does not constitute a property interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause. 7. Analysis: This case addresses the important issue of whether or not certain statutes allow for broader or narrower police discretion in their enforcement. The dissenting judges believed that the State of Colorado’s intention regarding restraining orders was made clear by the statutory language and that the state intended to abrogate the officers’ discretion when it stated that law enforcement officers “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.” This has led to debate regarding mandatory arrests in domestic violence cases. The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the “widespread refusal or failure of police officers to remove persons involved in episodes of domestic violence was presented to the legislature as the main reasoning for tightening the law so as to require enforcement of restraining orders by mandatory arrest and custody.” (Nearing, 295 Or., at 709, 670 P .2d, at