Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 29

2 

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

Respondent  certainly  could  have  entered  into  a  contract 
with a private security firm, obligating the firm to provide 
protection to respondent’s family; respondent’s interest in 
such  a  contract  would  unquestionably  constitute  “prop-
erty” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.  If a 
Colorado  statute  enacted  for  her  benefit,  or  a  valid  order 
entered  by  a  Colorado  judge,  created  the  functional 
equivalent  of  such  a  private  contract  by  granting  respon-
dent an entitlement to mandatory individual protection by 
the  local  police  force,  that  state-created  right  would  also 
qualify as “property” entitled to constitutional protection. 
I do not understand the majority to rule out the forego-
ing  propositions,  although  it  does  express  doubts.    See 
ante,  at  17  (“[I]t  is  by  no  means  clear  that  an  individual 
entitlement  to  enforcement  of  a  restraining  order  could 
constitute  a  ‘property’  interest”).    Moreover,  the  majority 
does  not  contest,  see  ante,  at  18,  that  if  respondent  did 
have a cognizable property interest in this case, the depri-
vation of that interest violated due process.  As the Court 
notes,  respondent  has  alleged  that  she  presented  the
police  with  a  copy  of  the  restraining  order  issued  by  the 
Colorado court and requested that it be enforced.  Ante, at 
2,  n. 1.    In  response,  she  contends,  the  officers  effectively
ignored  her.  If  these  allegations  are  true,  a  federal  stat-
ute, Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, provides her with
a remedy against the petitioner, even if Colorado law does 
not.  See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 
(1985).

The  central  question  in  this  case  is  therefore  whether,
as  a  matter  of  Colorado  law,  respondent  had  a  right  to 
police  assistance  comparable  to  the  right  she  would  have 
possessed to any other service the government or a private
firm  might  have  undertaken  to  provide.    See  Board  of 
Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972)
(“Property  interests,  of  course,  are  not  created  by  the  Con-
stitution.  Rather, they are created and their dimensions are