Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES 

Opinion of the Court 

to  her  repeated  reports  that  her  estranged  husband  was 
violating the terms of a restraining order.1 

The  restraining  order  had  been  issued  by  a  state  trial 
court  several  weeks  earlier  in  conjunction  with  respon-
dent’s divorce proceedings.  The original form order, issued 
on May 21, 1999, and served on respondent’s husband on
June  4,  1999,  commanded  him  not  to  “molest  or  disturb 
the peace of [respondent] or of any child,” and to remain at 
least  100  yards  from  the  family  home  at  all  times.    366 
F. 3d  1093,  1143  (CA10  2004)  (en  banc)  (appendix  to  dis-
senting  opinion  of  O’Brien,  J.).    The  bottom  of  the  pre-
printed  form  noted  that  the  reverse  side  contained
“IMPORTANT  NOTICES  FOR  RESTRAINED  PARTIES 
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.”  Ibid. (empha-
sis  deleted).    The  preprinted  text  on  the  back  of  the  form 
included the following “WARNING”: 

“A KNOWING VIOLATION OF  A RESTRAINING 
ORDER  IS  A  CRIME . . . .  A  VIOLATION  WILL 
ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT.  YOU 
MAY  BE  ARRESTED  WITHOUT  NOTICE  IF  A 
LAW  ENFORCEMENT  OFFICER  HAS  PROBABLE 
CAUSE  TO  BELIEVE  THAT  YOU  HAVE 
KNOWINGLY  VIOLATED  THIS  ORDER.” 
Id.,  at 
1144. 

The preprinted text on the back of the form also included a 

“NOTICE  TO  LAW  ENFORCEMENT  OFFICIALS,” 

which read in part: 

—————— 

1 Petitioner  claims  that  respondent’s  complaint  “did  not  allege  . . . 
that  she  ever  notified  the  police  of  her  contention  that  [her  husband] 
was actually in violation of the restraining order.”  Brief for Petitioner 
7,  n. 2.    The  complaint  does  allege,  however,  that  respondent  “showed 
[the  police]  a  copy  of  the  [temporary  restraining  order  (TRO)]  and 
requested  that  it  be  enforced.”    App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  126a.    At  this 
stage in the litigation, we may assume that this reasonably implied the 
order  was  being  violated.  See  Steel  Co.  v.  Citizens  for  Better  Environ-
ment, 523 U. S. 83, 104 (1998).