Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

2005-06-27

Headline: Court rules that a woman with a state restraining order has no constitutional right to force local police to enforce it, limiting federal lawsuits over police non‑enforcement.

Holding: The Court held that a person who obtains a state restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in police enforcement of that order, so failure to enforce does not trigger procedural due process.

Real World Impact:

Makes federal due process suits harder when police fail to enforce restraining orders.
Directs victims to pursue state-law remedies, contracts, or local policy change.
Affirms police discretion in how to respond to restraining order violations.

Topics: domestic violence, police enforcement, restraining orders, due process, civil lawsuits

Summary

Background

A woman who held a court-issued restraining order against her estranged husband asked the Castle Rock, Colorado police to enforce it after he took their three young daughters without permission. She called the police repeatedly over several hours, showed them the order, and asked that they act. The officers did not arrest him or otherwise enforce the order; later that night he returned to the police station and murdered the children.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Colorado law gave the woman a legally protected property interest in having police enforce the restraining order. The Court answered no. It explained that a protected “entitlement” must come clearly from state law and cannot exist where officials retain ordinary discretion. Colorado’s language directing officers to “use every reasonable means” or to “arrest or seek a warrant” did not, in the majority’s view, eliminate police discretion or create a new kind of personal property right. The Court also said an entitlement to only a procedure (for example, seeking a warrant) is not the sort of property that the Due Process Clause protects.

Real world impact

The ruling means victims who say police failed to enforce a restraining order generally cannot win damages under the federal Due Process Clause for that failure. The Court emphasized that States remain free to create enforceable remedies under state law, and that victims may seek those state-law or policy-based solutions instead of federal constitutional relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter agreed with the judgment but stressed limits on treating procedure as property. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing Colorado’s law and the restraining order did create an enforceable right and criticizing the Court for not deferring to the Tenth Circuit or certifying the question to the Colorado Supreme Court.