Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 37

10 

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

or  that  a  protection  order  has  been  violated.”   Develop-
ments in the Law: Legal Responses to Domestic Violence,
106 Harv. L. Rev. 1498, 1537 (1993).  The purpose of these
statutes  was  precisely  to  “counter  police  resistance  to 
arrests in domestic violence cases by removing or restrict-
ing  police  officer  discretion;  mandatory  arrest  policies 
would increase police response and reduce batterer recidi-
vism.”  Sack 1670. 

Thus, when Colorado passed its statute in 1994, it joined 
the  ranks  of  15  States  that  mandated  arrest  for  domestic 
violence  offenses  and  19  States  that  mandated  arrest  for 
domestic restraining order violations.  See Developments in 
the Law, 106 Harv. L. Rev., at 1537, n. 68 (noting statutes 
in  1993);  N.  Miller,  Institute  for  Law  and  Justice,  A  Law 
Enforcement  and  Prosecution  Perspective  7,  and  n.  74,  8, 
and n. 90 (2003), http://www.ilj.org/dv/dvvawa2000.htm (as 
visited  June  24,  2005,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s 
case  file)  (listing  Colorado  among  the  many  States  that 
currently have mandatory arrest statutes).9 

Given  the  specific  purpose  of  these  statutes,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  Colorado  Legislature  used  the  term 
“shall” advisedly in its domestic restraining order statute. 
While “shall” is probably best read to mean “may” in other 
Colorado  statutes  that  seemingly  mandate  enforcement, 
cf.  Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §31–4–112  (Lexis  2004)  (police  “shall 
suppress  all  riots,  disturbances  or  breaches  of  the  peace, 
shall  apprehend  all  disorderly  persons  in  the  city  . . .” 
(emphases added)), it is clear that the elimination of police 
discretion  was  integral  to  Colorado  and  its  fellow  States’ 

—————— 

9 See also Brief for International Municipal Lawyers Association and 
National League of Cities, National’s Sheriff’s Association, and County 
Sheriffs of Colorado as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner 6 (“Colo-
rado is not alone in mandating the arrest of persons who violate protec-
tive orders.  Some 19 states require an arrest when a police officer has 
probable cause to believe that such orders have been violated” (collect-
ing statutes)).