ACLU
Disappointed with Supreme Court
Ruling on Domestic Violence Orders
of Protection
(6/27/2005)
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
media@aclu.org
Civil
Liberties Group Calls on States to
Take Lead in Protecting Victims of
Domestic Violence
NEW YORK -- The
American Civil Liberties Union today
expressed disappointment over a
Supreme Court decision finding that
the U.S. Constitution does not
recognize an entitlement by domestic
violence victims to enforcement of
their protective orders. As Justice
Stevens wrote in the dissent, "the
Court gives short shrift to the
unique case of [statutes requiring
police enforcement] in the domestic
violence context."
The case stems
from a lawsuit filed by Jessica
Gonzales in 2000, which charged that
the Castle Rock, Colorado police
refused to enforce a restraining
order against her estranged husband,
who kidnapped and then murdered
their three young daughters.
"The Supreme
Court's ruling makes it clear that
state legislatures must take the
lead in protecting victims of
domestic violence and pass laws that
will hold police accountable for
taking protection orders seriously,"
said Lenora Lapidus, Director of the
ACLU Women's Rights Project, which
filed a friend-of-the-court brief
and organized eight other briefs
submitted on Gonzales' behalf. "We
urge state legislatures to act with
due haste to protect women and their
families from harm."
In today's
ruling, the Supreme Court found that
domestic violence victims do not
have a federal right to police
enforcement of their protective
orders. However, the ACLU said that
the decision does not change or
diminish existing state laws
regarding mandatory or presumptive
arrest. In fact, Justice Scalia
writing for the majority opinion
explicitly states that the ruling
today "does not mean states are
powerless to provide victims with
personally enforceable remedies? the
people of Colorado are free to craft
such a system under state law."
The ACLU pointed
to Montana and Tennessee as good
examples of how states can create
legal mechanisms to protect victims
and ensure that police departments
are accountable for enforcing the
law.
In Montana, the
state Supreme Court has recognized
that a domestic violence statute
encouraging the arrest of an abuser
imposes a duty on police officers.
Under Montana law, when a domestic
violence victim is injured because
the police negligently fail to
perform that duty, the police
officers are liable. In Tennessee,
the state Supreme Court has
recognized that a protective order
creates a special duty for police
officers to protect the victim who
holds the order and that police
officers can be sued when they
violate that duty by failing to
enforce the order.
"Legislatures and
courts should follow the examples of
states like Montana and Tennessee
and ensure that there are
consequences when police arbitrarily
fail to follow laws enacted for the
protection of victims of domestic
violence and their children," said
Emily Martin, a staff attorney with
the ACLU Women's Rights Project.
Jessica Gonzales
agreed that stronger laws are needed
to ensure that police are enforcing
orders of protection.
"I am
disappointed that the Court has
found that Castle Rock cannot be
held liable for its failure to
enforce my restraining order," said
Gonzales. "I will continue to raise
awareness around this issue so that
my daughters will not have died in
vain. We need to put pressure on our
elected officials to pass laws that
offer real protection to women and
their families."
For more
information on this case, as well as
the nine court briefs submitted on
behalf of Gonzales, go to "".
To
read a profile article on Jessica
Gonzales, go to
www.http://aclu.org/womensrights/gen/13212res20050317.html
.