To Protect and Serve...But Don't Hold Us To That
On Monday, June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court ruling in this case held that
- Gonzales did not, for Fourteenth Amendment Due Process purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband
- A benefit (police enforcement of the restraining order) is not a protected entitlement if officials (the police) have discretion to grant or deny the benefit
- Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders
- Even if Colorado's statute had made enforcement mandatory, it would not necessarily mean that Gonzales had an entitlement to enforcement
- Even if the US Supreme Court were to think otherwise about Colorado's creation of an entitlement, the Court is not convinced that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a "property interest" for due process purposes.
Thus, the Court held in Gonzales that the police were not liable when they failed to enforce the restraining order filed by Gonzales against her husband. The police had no culpability for the deaths of Gonzales three children taken by her husband in violation of the court order.
1 Comments:
The Supreme Court said she could not sue for loss of property rights without due process of law based on the 14th. The Supreme Court added (alomst encouraged) her to sue on the state level and to encourage legislation that would/could/should hold the police departments liable for negilgent conduct.
I'm all for Law Enforcement liability in cases of negligence, truly. If the police screw up, they screw up, and need to get spanked accordingly. Ms. Gonzales still has recourse, just not under the 14th in Federal Court.
What happened to those children is an absolute tragedy, no doubt about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home