Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 35

8 

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

ing  police  discretion  in  this  area.  Second,  the  Court’s 
formalistic analysis fails to take seriously the fact that the 
Colorado  statute  at  issue  in  this  case  was enacted for the 
benefit of the narrow class of persons who are beneficiaries 
of  domestic  restraining  orders,  and  that  the  order  at  issue 
in  this  case  was  specifically  intended  to  provide  protection 
to respondent and her children.  Finally, the Court is sim-
ply  wrong  to  assert  that  a  citizen’s  interest  in  the  govern-
ment’s commitment to provide police enforcement in certain 
defined  circumstances  does  not  resemble  any  “traditional 
conception  of  property,”  ante,  at  17;  in  fact,  a  citizen’s 
property interest in such a commitment is just as concrete 
and  worthy  of  protection  as  her  interest  in  any  other 
important  service  the  government  or  a  private  firm  has
undertaken to provide.

In  1994,  the  Colorado  General  Assembly  passed  omni-
bus  legislation  targeting  domestic  violence.  The  part  of 
the legislation at issue in this case mandates enforcement 
of  a  domestic  restraining  order  upon  probable  cause  of  a 
violation,  §18–6–803.5(3),  while  another  part  directs  that 
police  officers  “shall,  without  undue  delay,  arrest”  a  sus-
pect  upon  “probable  cause  to  believe  that  a  crime  or  of-
fense  of  domestic  violence  has  been  committed,”  §18–6–
803.6(1).7  In adopting this legislation, the Colorado Gen-

—————— 

7 See  Fuller  &  Stansberry,  1994  Legislature  Strengthens  Domestic 
Violence  Protective  Orders,  23  Colo.  Lawyer  2327  (1994)  (“The  1994 
Colorado  legislative  session  produced  several  significant  domestic 
abuse bills that strengthened both civil and criminal restraining order 
laws  and  procedures  for  victims  of  domestic  violence”);  id.,  at  2329 
(“Although  many  law  enforcement  jurisdictions  already  take  a  proac-
tive approach to domestic violence, arrest and procedural policies vary 
greatly  from  one  jurisdiction  to  another.  H. B.  94–1253  mandates  the 
arrest of domestic violence perpetrators and restraining order violaters. 
H. B.  94–1090  repeals  the  requirement  that  protected  parties  show  a 
copy of their restraining order to enforcing officers.  In the past, failure 
to  provide  a  copy  of  the  restraining  order  has  led  to  hesitation  from 
police to enforce the order for fear of an illegal arrest.  The new statute