Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

1 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 04–278 
_________________ 

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER 
v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT 
BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, 
REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN 
GONZALES, AND LESLIE 
GONZALES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 27, 2005] 

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,

dissenting. 

The  issue  presented  to  us  is  much  narrower  than  is 
suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and 
their  amici.   Neither  the  tragic  facts  of  the  case,  nor  the
importance  of  according  proper  deference  to  law  enforce-
ment  professionals,  should  divert  our  attention  from  that 
issue.  That issue is whether the restraining order entered
by  the  Colorado  trial  court  on  June  4,  1999,  created  a 
“property”  interest  that  is  protected  from  arbitrary  depri-
vation  by  the  Due  Process  Clause  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment. 

It  is  perfectly  clear,  on  the  one  hand,  that  neither  the 
Federal  Constitution  itself,  nor  any  federal  statute, 
granted  respondent  or  her  children  any  individual  enti-
tlement to police protection.  See DeShaney v. Winnebago 
County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989).  Nor, I 
assume,  does  any  Colorado  statute  create  any  such  enti-
tlement for the ordinary citizen.  On the other hand, it is 
equally  clear  that  federal  law  imposes  no  impediment  to 
the  creation  of  such  an  entitlement  by  Colorado  law.