Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

efforts to contact the protected party upon the arrest of the 
restrained person,” §18–6–803.5(3)(d); and that the agency 
“shall give [to the protected person] a copy” of the report it
submits  to  the  court  that  issued  the  order,  §18–6–
803.5(3)(e).    Perhaps  most  importantly,  the  statute  spoke 
directly  to  the  protected  person’s  power  to  “initiate  con-
tempt  proceedings  against  the  restrained  person  if  the 
order [was] issued in a civil action or request the prosecut-
ing  attorney  to  initiate  contempt  proceedings  if  the  order 
[was]  issued  in  a  criminal  action.”   §18–6–803.5(7).  The 
protected  person’s  express  power  to  “initiate”  civil  con-
tempt proceedings contrasts tellingly with the mere ability 
to  “request”  initiation  of  criminal  contempt  proceedings— 
and  even  more  dramatically  with  the  complete  silence 
about any power to “request” (much less demand) that an 
arrest be made. 

The  creation  of  a  personal  entitlement  to  something  as 
vague  and  novel  as  enforcement  of  restraining  orders 
cannot  “simply  g[o]  without  saying.”  Post,  at  17,  n. 16 
(STEVENS, J., dissenting).  We conclude that Colorado has 
not created such an entitlement. 

C 
Even if we were to think otherwise concerning the crea-
tion of an entitlement by Colorado, it is by no means clear 
that  an  individual  entitlement  to  enforcement  of  a  re-
straining  order  could  constitute  a  “property”  interest  for 
purposes  of  the  Due  Process  Clause.    Such  a  right  would
not,  of  course,  resemble  any  traditional  conception  of 
property.  Although that alone does not disqualify it from 
due process protection, as Roth and its progeny show, the 
right  to  have  a  restraining  order  enforced  does  not  “have 
some  ascertainable  monetary  value,”  as  even  our  “Roth-
type  property-as-entitlement”  cases  have  implicitly  re-
quired.  Merrill,  The  Landscape  of  Constitutional  Prop-