Restraining orders only work when the person it is filed against abides by it. If they don’t, then they can be arrested, if caught violating the order. However, if the restrained party does not abide by the retraining order and cause harm or death to the person who filed the order, the police are not liable, according to a recent court decision.
An estranged husband had a retraining order filed against him for domestic violence, but in 2014, he chose to violate the order and killed his estranged wife and permanently wounded another woman, so the family sued the police for failing to protect them. However, a judge ruled against the family.
(Fresno Bee) – Police are not liable for the killing of a domestic violence victim or for the shooting of another victim by her estranged husband in 2014, a federal judge ruled this month in dismissing a civil rights lawsuit against the Fresno Police Department.
Judge Dale A. Drozd ruled in U.S. District Court in Fresno that established law says “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
The case involved the killing of Cindy Raygoza and the wounding of Pamela Motley, who was left a quadriplegic.
Fresno attorney Kevin Little filed the lawsuit in June 2015 on behalf of Motley and Raygoza’s family, contending that Fresno police didn’t do enough to help domestic violence victims even though they were clearly in dangerous situations…
What do people expect the police to do, station an officer at the house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and for long? In a city the size of Fresno, every police officer would be busy guarding filers of restraining orders, leaving none to arrest criminals and enforce the laws. This lawsuit was simply a case of a lack of common sense and the desire to get free money by blaming the police for someone else’s crime.