Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

11 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

solution  to  the  problem  of  underenforcement  in  domestic 
violence  cases.10    Since  the  text  of  Colorado’s  statute  per-
fectly captures this legislative purpose, it is hard to imag-
ine  what  the  Court  has  in  mind  when  it  insists  on  “some 
stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature.”  Ante, 
at 12. 

While Colorado case law does not speak to the question, 
it  is  instructive  that  other  state  courts  interpreting  their 
analogous statutes have not only held that they eliminate 
the  police’s  traditional  discretion  to  refuse  enforcement, 
but  have  also  recognized  that  they  create  rights  enforce-
able  against  the  police  under  state  law.    For  example,  in 
Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Ore. 702, 670 P. 2d 137 (1983) (en 
banc),  the  court  held  that  although  the  common  law  of 
negligence  did  not  support  a  suit  against  the  police  for 
failing  to  enforce  a  domestic  restraining  order,  the  stat-

—————— 

10 See Note, Mandatory Arrest: A Step Toward Eradicating Domestic 
Violence,  But  is  It  Enough?  1996  U.  Ill.  L.  Rev.  533,  542,  544–546 
(describing  the  problems  that  attend  a  discretionary  arrest  regime: 
“Even  when  probable  clause  is  present,  police  officers  still  frequently 
try  to  calm  the  parties  and  act  as  mediators. . . .  Three  studies  found 
the  arrest  rate  to  range  between  3%  and  10%  when  the  decision  to 
arrest  is  left  to  police  discretion.    Another  study  found  that  the  police 
made  arrests  in  only  13%  of  the  cases  where  the  victim  had  visible 
injuries. . . .  Police  officers  often  employ  irrelevant  criteria  such  as  the 
‘reason’ for the abuse or the severity of the victim’s injuries in making 
their decision to arrest. . . . Some [officers] may feel strongly that police 
should  not  interfere  in  family  arguments  or  lovers’  quarrels.    Such 
attitudes  make  police  much  more  likely  to  investigate  intent  and 
provocation,  and  consider  them  as  mitigating  factors,  in  responding  to 
domestic  violence  calls  than  in  other  types  of  cases”);  see  also  Walsh, 
The  Mandatory  Arrest  Law:  Police  Reaction,  16  Pace  L. Rev.  97,  98 
(1995).    Cf.  Sack  1671–1672  (“Mandatory  arrest  policies  have  signifi-
cantly  increased  the  number  of  arrests  of  batterers  for  domestic  vio-
lence crimes. . . . In New York City, from 1993, the time the mandatory 
arrest  policy  was  instituted,  to  1999,  felony  domestic  violence  arrests 
increased 33%, misdemeanor domestic violence arrests rose 114%, and 
arrests  for  violation  of  orders  of  protection  were  up  76%”  (footnotes 
omitted)).