Turk182

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE JUNE 28, 2005
• http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually k**led.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police k**led him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.
The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.
A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.
But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."
Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."
But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

•
"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.
Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.
In another ruling on Monday, the court rebuked the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, for having reopened a death penalty appeal, on the basis of newly discovered evidence, after the ruling had become final.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The 5-to-4 decision, Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, came in response to an appeal by the State of Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit removed a convicted murderer, Gregory Thompson, from the state's death row.
After his conviction and the failure of his appeals in state court, Mr. Thompson, with new lawyers, had gone to federal district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his initial lawyers had been constitutionally inadequate. The new lawyers obtained a consultation with a psychologist, who diagnosed Mr. Thompson as schizophrenic.
But the psychologist's report was not included in the file of the habeas corpus petition in district court, which denied the petition. It was not until the Sixth Circuit and then the Supreme Court had also denied his petition, making the case final, that the Sixth Circuit reopened the case, finding that the report was crucial evidence that should have been considered.
In overturning that ruling in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the majority said the appeals court had abused its discretion in an "extraordinary departure from standard appellate procedures." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor joined the opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied on rules to the exclusion of justice. Judges need a "degree of discretion, thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears," he said. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined the dissent.

So why do we need cops? They do not have the jurisdiction

Simper Fi

Joe

PLT Sarge Loc: Alabama

Most every squad car I see displays a decal, Serve and Protect. Guess those will have to removed.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

It would appear so.

Turk182

Most of the police cars don't have that on them anymore.

The only people that they protect it their own, judges, prosecutors, magistrates, attorneys.
If you have a problem with your neighbor and you call the sheriff, they will come out but before they do anything the check with the prosecuting attorney.
In my case then prosecutor did not want a $500.00 fine they could have got from taking my neighbor to court for an infraction in a code.

But guess what, they don't have the power to do that because the Sheriff does not have a bond.
The sheriff is not legal in most states.
The Dodd Frank Act took care of that and the judges at the same time, not bonds. It shows they have a bond but the paper is no good.
Read the Dodd Frank Act.

You can also read my other post "Traffic tickets force you to contract , by signing ticket."

If you want to learn how to beat the system you can e-mail me. sprayman110@aol.com

Semper Fi

Joe

Turk182

The Sheriff is not a Constitutional Sheriff.

Semper Fi


Joe

Gatsby

Pre PC, that meant that they were there to serve and protect us.

Post PC, that means that the police need us to protect and serve them.

Turk182

I can beat any traffic ticket they would write, more than 20 different ways, as long as no one was injured.


Semper Fi


Joe

bobebgtime Loc: Virginia

20 different ways? Hell Joe I just need one way.

Turk182

Read my post on "Traffic tickets force you to contract ".

You may want to go to "https://reignoftheheavens.com/", and join.

It can take you out of the control of the uSA government.
You can get a NAC, and then declare your Nationality.
Then the courts can not have you in their corporation as a citizen by your drivers license, or birth certificate.

Semper Fi

Joe

Lonewolf

The police are to keep the poor from stealing from the rich and the time is comeing when there will not be enough police to stop them.

Radiance3

===================
These article is comparing apples to oranges. The issues mentioned here that went to the SC, are entirely different from the events that happened on the School Shooting at Florida. The rules of the judges were very specific. Those events like wife beating, preventing lunatic man or husband to coming to her home. Those are different cases, and must not be associated with the responsibilities of the law enforcement ot the FBI to the Florida from the school massacre. POLICE OFFICERS must be responsible for abandoning this horrific criminal k*****g the children.
I think those police officers who did not perform their duties must be removed. I think there are underground forces destroying our country right now. If the FBI did not do its jobs, because they are upset that the memo about the Dossier, and FISA was released, they have lots of explaining to do. I think the FBI right now is not cooperating or doing its jobs. But protecting the illegal activities of Comey and Mueller.

Turk182

You need to learn how to beat their system.
Traffic tickets force you to contract , by signing ticket.
Signing ticket under duress making it null and void.
Only jury of your pears can find you guilty, not a judge.
You are not a member of their private corporation.
Not part of the Masonic order.
Have a status hearing.
Is the court public or private. Neither are lawful.
Failure to provide factual evidence of U.S. citizenship (via oath of citizenship)
Evidence of being a US Citizen.
They are trafficking you and that is a $250,000.00 fine.
You are an American National.
You are exempt from taxes.

mongo Loc: TEXAS

When I was an officer in Hawaii, I arrested the mayor for speeding
because he exited his vehicle to dress me down in public.
You should have seen the look on the chiefs face when I brought him in,
in hand-cuffs, and booked him!
Of course, they released him soon after.
However, most of the station heralded me as a hero for nailing that slimy puke!
About six months later, he was indited for using tax money for his own expenses.

SEMPER FI

Lonewolf

good job