Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 36

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

9 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

eral  Assembly  joined  a  nationwide  movement  of  States 
that  took  aim  at  the  crisis  of  police  underenforcement  in 
the  domestic  violence  sphere  by  implementing  “manda-
tory arrest” statutes.  The crisis of underenforcement had 
various  causes,  not  least  of  which  was  the  perception  by 
police  departments  and  police  officers  that  domestic  vio-
lence was a private, “family” matter and that arrest was to 
be  used  as  a  last  resort.    Sack,  Battered  Women  and  the 
State:  The  Struggle  for  the  Future  of  Domestic  Violence 
Policy,  2004  Wis.  L.  Rev.  1657,  1662–1663  (hereinafter 
Sack);  id.,  at  1663  (“Because  these  cases  were  considered 
noncriminal,  police  assigned  domestic  violence  calls  low
priority  and  often  did  not  respond  to  them  for  several
hours  or  ignored  them  altogether”).    In  response  to  these
realities,  and  emboldened  by  a  well-known  1984  experi-
ment by the Minneapolis police department,8 “many states
enacted  mandatory  arrest  statutes  under  which  a  police 
officer  must  arrest  an  abuser  when  the  officer  has  prob-
able cause to believe that a domestic assault has occurred 

—————— 

also  shields  arresting  officers  from  liability;  this  is  expected  to  reduce 
concerns  about  enforcing  the  mandatory  arrest  requirements”  (foot-
notes omitted)). 

8 See  Sack  1669  (“The  movement  to  strengthen  arrest  policies  was 
bolstered in 1984 by the publication of the results of a study on manda-
tory  arrest  in  domestic  violence  cases  that  had  been  conducted  in 
Minneapolis.  In this study, police handled randomly assigned domestic 
violence  offenders  by  using  one  of  three  different  responses:  arresting 
the  offender,  mediating  the  dispute  or  requiring  the  offender  to  leave 
the house for eight hours.  The study concluded that in comparison with 
the  other  two  responses,  arrest  had  a  significantly  greater  impact  on 
reducing domestic violence recidivism.  The findings from the Minnea-
polis study were used by the U. S. Attorney General in a report issued 
in  1984  that  recommended,  among  other  things,  arrest  in  domestic 
violence  cases  as  the  standard  law  enforcement  response”  (footnotes 
omitted)); see also Zorza, The Criminal Law of Misdemeanor Domestic 
Violence,  1970–1990,  83  J.  Crim.  L.  &  C.  46,  63–65  (1992)  (tracing 
history of mandatory arrest laws and noting that the first such law was 
implemented by Oregon in 1977).