Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
They also gave the states the option to require police to protect people who have requested and been granted such orders, but seriously, think about the logistics of doing so. Should we hire police officers to act as personal bodyguards to these people?
|
You pretty much added the "voice of reason" I was going to put in this thread. The ruling by the Supreme Court said that under these circumstances, the fact that the police didn't act as a bodyguard is not the grounds for a lawsuit.
I've worked hundreds of domestic cases, and in each divorce filed, there is an automatic restraining order attached to the summons going to the defendant (it affects the plaintiff, too). It doesn't matter if the parties are being extremely civil to each other at the time, it goes into place without any special request. Why? So the police can have that extra tool in their arsenal in dealing with domestic situations as they arise without being sued for harassment.
Consider this all-too-common fact situation: Wife files for divorce and husband gets served with the papers. He decides to go to the house to get his personal effects and clothes. While there, they exchange heated words but no blows over who will get to keep the goldfish (or something else that in retrospect seems trivial). She calls the cops. When they arrive, they are at a house where both parties are owners and neither have broken any law--it's not illegal for a couple to argue about goldfish. Still, the restraining order gives the police the authority to remove him from the premises, and the discretion to arrest, warn or persuade the hubby to leave. They aren't going to follow him home and watch him 24/7--we don't have the money to pay them to do that--but they have extra powers because of the restraining order.
I can see a situation where the police could be held liable (and I've not read the most recent case, so what I'm about to say may have been covered in that). Take a fact situation like that alleged by the family of Nicole Brown Simpson, where the police refused to arrest OJ because he was a celebrity. Despite repeated warnings and perhaps court orders to prohibit such conduct, the police didn't arrest him to take him before the judge that issued the restraining order. At some point, there could be liability for the failure of the police to protect as the court had directed (again, unless this has been specifically removed by the most recent case). There are local celebrities in each community, and I don't mean just the TV weatherman. The difference would be in being held liable for failing to make any effort to protect versus failing to be around the clock bodyguards.