Monday, June 27, 2005

There Are Court Orders, and Then There Are Court Orders We Don't Really Care About

Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders

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.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

Now, if the Supreme Court issued an order and the U.S. Marshals didn't enforce it, you know there would be hell to pay. But some poor non-lawyer, non-corporation, non-insurance company with a court order? Pound sand.

That's why I always counseled abused women that a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Often it just inflames the situation with the abuser. That becomes the act of defiance for which the abuser wants to punish you. You're better off squirreling away your money & sneaking off to a safe house than getting a court order from a court system that thinks abused women and children don't count. At least the people who run the domestic violence shelter will try to help you.

It was a 7-2 decision. In dissent were John Paul Stevens, the last liberal giant on the court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only decent appointment Clinton made to the Court. (Stephen Breyer, Clinton's other appointment, voted with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter against this poor woman's claim. Thirty years ago, instead of being described as a moderate liberal, he would have been a moderate Republican.)

No comments: