Castle Rock v. Gonzales 545 US 748 (2005), is the case of the United States Supreme Court where the Court ruled, 7-2, that a city and its police department can not be sued under 42 USC Ã,§ 1983 for failing to enforce an arrest warrant, which resulted in the killing of three daughters by her estranged husband.
Video Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Synopsis background
Order of arrest and police inaction
During the divorce process, Jessica Lenahan-Gonzalez, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a permanent detention order against her husband Simon, who had been stalking and controlling him, on June 4, 1999, which required him to stay at least 100 meters (91 m) away from him and the four children (Jesse's son, who is not Simon's biological child, and Rebecca's daughter, Katherine, and Leslie) except during the appointed time of the visit. On June 22, at around 5:15 pm, Simon took his three daughters who broke the orders. Jessica called the police at about 7:30, 8:30, and 10:10 on June 22, and 12:15 on June 23, and visited the police station personally at 12:40 am on June 23. However, since he from time to time had allowed Simon to take the children within hours, the police did not take action, even though Simon had called Jessica before the second police call and told her that she had a daughter with him in the amusement park. in Denver, Colorado. At about 03:20 on June 23, Simon appeared at the Castle Rock police station and was killed in a shootout with the officers. The search of his vehicle revealed the bodies of the three daughters, who were assumed to have been killed before his arrival.
Maps Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Gonzales filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, his police department, and three individual police officers with whom he had spoken under 42 U.S.C. Ã,§ 1983, claimed the interests of a federally protected property in the enforcement of arrest warrants and accused "official policy or habit of failing to respond well to complaints of withholding rule violations." A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the Denver Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Colorado. A panel of the court dismisses claims of Gonzales's substantive legal process but finds claims of procedural procedural proceedings; a rehearing en banc reaches the same conclusion. The court also confirmed the findings that the three officers had qualified immunity and thus were not subject to defamation.
Court Opinion
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Tenth Circuit, returning the order of dismissal of the District Courts. The Court's majority opinion by Judge Antonin Scalia states that enforcement of detention orders is not mandatory under Colorado law; is the mandate for enforcement there, it will not create an individual right for enforcement that can be regarded as a protected right under the precedent of the College of Higher Education Regent's Council v. Roth ; and even if there is a protected individual right to enforce the detention order, such ownership shall have no monetary value and will therefore not be counted as a property for the Due Process Clause.
Judge David Souter wrote the same opinion, using the excuse that enforcement of arrest warrant is a process, not a process-protected interest, and that there is no process of legal protection for the process.
Stevens opinion difference
Judge John Paul Stevens wrote a differing opinion, in which he wrote that in regard to whether the arrest was required under Colorado law, the court must postpone the 10th trial stating that it is or certify the question to the Colorado Supreme Court rather than decide the matter own. He went on to write that the law creates a law enforcement guarantee, which is an individual benefit and is a protected property interest under Roth, rejects the use of the court O'Bannon v. Town Center for Nursing Courts to require the value of money and the difference of agreement between enforcement of arrest order (detention offender) and enforcement benefits (safety of offenders).
Next development
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In 2011, this case occurred before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a commission composed of representatives from members of the Organization of American States (the United States is a full member by the ratification of the charter document, which is the treaty itself.) found that "the state failed to act with due diligence to protect Jessica Lenahan and (her daughter) Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca Gonzales from domestic violence, violating the state's obligation not to discriminate and provide equal protection before the law." The Commission also said that "the failure of the United States to adequately regulate the state structure to protect (Gonzales girls) from domestic violence is discriminatory and a violation of their right to life."
Response
Because this case is the latest in high profile cross-profile cases, such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County, where lawsuits against government entities due to failure to prevent damage to individuals are dismissed, it has also been used by supporters of weapons in the United States to add additional weight to the defense argument for private gun ownership.
The National Organization for Women believes the Supreme Court's decision reduces utility holding orders and "effectively enforces green light law to ignore detention orders."
References
See also
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County
- Warren v. District of Columbia
- Domestic violence
- Safeguard command
- Order of detention
- Refused to help police officers
External links
- Text Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005) is available from: Ã, Cornell Ã, CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Ã, Oyez
- Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States, a case filed by the applicant before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
- The Court Supports the City in Cases of Domestic Violence
- ACLU Disappointed with Supreme Court Decision on Domestic Violence Orders
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments