Right to restraint
Police must enforce restraining orders to protect victims
By: Editorial Board
Issue date: 3/28/08 Section: Opinion
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that citizens have no right to expect police enforcement of a restraining order.
The estimated 1.3 million women a year who are victims of domestic violence in the United States are at risk if the court's decision is upheld.
Since the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union and Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute have filed a brief with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to call attention to what they call a civil and women's rights issue.
While the IAC can't enforce any future ruling, the case at least sheds light on the inadequate protection for domestic abuse victims in the U.S.
For Jessica Lenahan, the plaintiff in the case, the lack of police enforcement of a restraining order against her ex-husband resulted in the murder of her three young daughters.
Residents should have some expectation that a restraining order will be enforced and that victims of domestic violence can expect some level of police protection. This issue particularly affects women, as they are statistically more likely to be victims of domestic violence and to take out restraining orders.
In 1999, despite the restraining order against him, Lenahan's ex-husband took their daughters and killed them before he was killed by police after opening fire on a police station.
Lenahan called police upon discovering her daughters were missing. She asserts that she asked police to enforce her restraining order and retrieve her daughters, but they did not.
She lost her first lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colo., police, but in her appeal, the Tenth Circuit ruled that she had the right to police enforcement of her order under Colorado's mandatory arrest statute.
Mandatory arrest statutes remove police discretion and require that police arrest violators of protective orders. In many states these apply specifically to cases involving domestic violence allegations.
Castle Rock appealed the Tenth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 that Lenahan had no entitlement to police enforcement of the restraining order.
By upholding the decision not to act on a restraining order, the courts have all but taken away the legal protections afforded to the abused.
The dissenting opinion asserted that police failed to uphold Colorado's mandatory arrest law, which removes police discretion and requires that violators of restraining orders in domestic violence cases be arrested.
For many victims, the only legal recourse for defense against an abuser is a restraining order. Laws calling for the mandatory arrest of violators initially were created to protect victims but are useless if not enforced.
North Carolina does not even have a mandatory arrest law in place. State and local authorities should be providing more legal protection for victims.
We hope that the Chapel Hill police would never use police discretion as an excuse to not enforce a restraining order.
The estimated 1.3 million women a year who are victims of domestic violence in the United States are at risk if the court's decision is upheld.
Since the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union and Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute have filed a brief with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to call attention to what they call a civil and women's rights issue.
While the IAC can't enforce any future ruling, the case at least sheds light on the inadequate protection for domestic abuse victims in the U.S.
For Jessica Lenahan, the plaintiff in the case, the lack of police enforcement of a restraining order against her ex-husband resulted in the murder of her three young daughters.
Residents should have some expectation that a restraining order will be enforced and that victims of domestic violence can expect some level of police protection. This issue particularly affects women, as they are statistically more likely to be victims of domestic violence and to take out restraining orders.
In 1999, despite the restraining order against him, Lenahan's ex-husband took their daughters and killed them before he was killed by police after opening fire on a police station.
Lenahan called police upon discovering her daughters were missing. She asserts that she asked police to enforce her restraining order and retrieve her daughters, but they did not.
She lost her first lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colo., police, but in her appeal, the Tenth Circuit ruled that she had the right to police enforcement of her order under Colorado's mandatory arrest statute.
Mandatory arrest statutes remove police discretion and require that police arrest violators of protective orders. In many states these apply specifically to cases involving domestic violence allegations.
Castle Rock appealed the Tenth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 that Lenahan had no entitlement to police enforcement of the restraining order.
By upholding the decision not to act on a restraining order, the courts have all but taken away the legal protections afforded to the abused.
The dissenting opinion asserted that police failed to uphold Colorado's mandatory arrest law, which removes police discretion and requires that violators of restraining orders in domestic violence cases be arrested.
For many victims, the only legal recourse for defense against an abuser is a restraining order. Laws calling for the mandatory arrest of violators initially were created to protect victims but are useless if not enforced.
North Carolina does not even have a mandatory arrest law in place. State and local authorities should be providing more legal protection for victims.
We hope that the Chapel Hill police would never use police discretion as an excuse to not enforce a restraining order.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
zabouti
George Entenman
posted 3/28/08 @ 7:54 AM EST
Thank you for writing about this. I wasn't aware of the Supreme Court's decision. Do you know what their excuse was? I thought that our new rightwing justices were all into "states rights", so how come they didn't think that Colorado police didn't have to follow Colorado law? Probably because these rightwingers don't really believe in rights at all. (Continued…)
disgusting
posted 3/28/08 @ 3:35 PM EST
Clearly, the current system just does not work.
I volunteer at a center for abused women, and am trained to know what help the law can and cannot offer when it comes to being abused. (Continued…)
Post a Comment