Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  545 U. S. ____ (2005) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

sity  for  discretion  is  particularly  apparent  in  a  case  such 
as  this  one,  where  the  suspected  violator  is  not  actually
present and his whereabouts are unknown.  Cf. Donaldson 
v.  Seattle,  65  Wash.  App.  661,  671–672,  831  P. 2d  1098, 
1104 (1992) (“There is a vast difference between a manda-
tory  duty  to  arrest  [a  violator  who  is  on  the  scene]  and  a 
mandatory  duty  to  conduct  a  follow  up  investigation  [to 
locate an absent violator]. . . .  A mandatory duty to inves-
tigate  would  be  completely  open-ended  as  to  priority, 
duration and intensity”). 

The  dissent  correctly  points  out  that,  in  the  specific 
context  of  domestic  violence,  mandatory-arrest  statutes 
have  been  found  in  some  States  to  be  more  mandatory 
than traditional mandatory-arrest statutes.  Post, at 7–13 
(opinion of STEVENS, J.).  The Colorado statute mandating 
arrest for a domestic-violence offense is different from but 
related  to  the  one  at  issue  here,  and  it  includes  similar 
though not identical phrasing.  See Colo. Rev. Stat. §18–6– 
803.6(1)  (Lexis  1999)  (“When  a  peace  officer  determines
that  there  is  probable  cause  to  believe  that  a  crime  or 
offense  involving  domestic  violence  . . .  has  been  commit-
ted,  the  officer  shall,  without  undue  delay,  arrest  the 
person  suspected  of  its  commission  . . .”).    Even  in  the 
domestic-violence  context,  however,  it  is  unclear  how  the 
mandatory-arrest  paradigm  applies  to  cases  in  which  the 
offender  is  not  present  to  be  arrested.    As  the  dissent 
explains,  post,  at  9–10,  and  n. 8,  much  of  the  impetus  for 
mandatory-arrest  statutes  and  policies  derived  from  the 
idea that it is better for police officers to arrest the aggres-
sor  in  a  domestic-violence  incident  than  to  attempt  to 
mediate the dispute or merely to ask the offender to leave 
the  scene.  Those  other  options  are  only  available,  of
course,  when  the  offender  is  present  at  the  scene.    See 

—————— 

to believe a violation has occurred is quite different from a determina-

tion that the violation is too insignificant to pursue.