Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Torts

TortsDue ProcessSection 1983Property Interests42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourteenth Amendmentprocedural due processproperty interest

Facts

Respondent obtained a Colorado restraining order against her estranged husband; the order and related statute used mandatory language directing police to use every reasonable means to enforce the order and to arrest or seek a warrant upon probable cause of a violation. After her husband took their three children outside the home without prior arrangement, respondent repeatedly contacted Castle Rock police, showed them the order, and asked that it be enforced, but officers told her to wait and allegedly made no reasonable effort to locate him or enforce the order. Hours later, her husband arrived at the police station and was killed in a shootout; the bodies of the three children were found in his truck. Respondent alleged the town had a policy or custom of failing to enforce restraining orders.

Issue

Whether a person who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having police enforce that order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated. More specifically, whether Colorado law created an entitlement to police enforcement sufficient to constitute property under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Rule

A procedural due process property interest exists only when state law creates a legitimate claim of entitlement rather than a unilateral expectation, and no such entitlement exists where government officials retain discretion over granting the benefit. Even mandatory-sounding enforcement statutes do not necessarily eliminate traditional police discretion, and an individual's indirect benefit from the arrest or prosecution of another generally does not amount to a protected property interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a family court issues a civil protection order against Aaron Pike. Arizona’s statute says officers "shall use all reasonable means" to enforce such orders and "shall arrest or seek a warrant" when they have probable cause of a violation. After Aaron sends threatening messages and leaves before officers arrive, Maya Solis sues the city under § 1983, claiming a property interest in police enforcement of the order.

Is Maya most likely to establish a protected property interest for procedural due process purposes?

Explanation. A procedural due process property interest exists only when state law creates a legitimate claim of entitlement, not merely a desire or expectation. Under the majority’s reasoning, statutory language such as "shall" does not automatically eliminate traditional police discretion, especially in enforcement settings. Because discretion and practical judgment remain, Maya would most likely lack a protected property interest. (Derived from Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (n.d.).)