being served a restraining order with a CHL....

[blue]

TAM-
Knew of a good man just like that, back in the day... Calif. ex and her lawyers skinned him completely, alimony, kids, the works, NO justice or mercy at all. (Calif. = he didn't do anything wrong, except say "I do" !)

They were a little bent outta shape when he found overseas work, out of their greedy reach.

[Hoi Polloi]

I agree completely, TAM. However, the problem in situations like that is in the courts issuing frivolous or abusive protective orders, not in their being followed once issued.

I will also point out that officers are not legally required to act on protective orders. It seems crazy to me that a judge ordering that you shall be arrested means the police can choose to arrest you, but the courts have made this very clear. They say there is precedent for police discretion and no obligation for the police to protect people, even ones with protective orders. I can't look up the cases right now, but they're pretty easy to find with a search for something like--police no duty to protect court cases.

[srothstein]

Hoi,

You said that it is a shame officers have discretion on protective orders but it seems like you are unaware of one part of our Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is the part that caused problems in my example. There is only one time in Texas an officer is legally obligated to make an arrest, and that is for violation of a protective order in his presence or view. As an honest officer, I had no choice but to make an arrest because the law required it, then go to the DA and see if I could get my own case thrown out of court.

Obviously, there is always some police discretion involved in any case. The officer can make the decision on whether or not to stop the car, then has a decision on whether or not to charge or warn the driver. In most cases, the officer has the discretion on whether or not to arrest for any offense. Part of this discretion is in how to interpret the elements of the offense, what questions to ask, how to investigate. In some cases, the officer makes the determination of whether or not a crime was committed and what crime. In a shooting case, to keep this on topic, the officer gets to decide if there was a defense that justified the shooting and whether or not to arrest. You can literally kill a person right in front of the officer and he has discretion on arrest. All of this is necessary if we want police officers to be peace officers and try for justice and fairness. If we went with mandatory arrests, we could not afford the cops needed for patrol, as most would never get to the calls they got. They would be too busy with traffic and other minor things. Incidentally, this also applies to citizen's making lawful arrests too.

All of this stems from the law saying a person (or an officer) may arrest under certain conditions. May is a permissive word in the law and allows but does not mandate an action. But the law on enforcing protective orders says a peace officer SHALL arrest if committed in his presence or view. This is why it is mandatory. The word shall instead of may does this. But in cases like this, once the call come sin there is very little decision making fr the officer. The protective order is on file with the PD already and usually the computers tell the dispatcher to tell the officer it is active. So the officer arrives on scene knowing there is an order, who is protected, and who they are protected against. If the violator is there, this is all the officer needs to know. The violation is clear, the orders of the court are clear, and the law is clear.

BTW, I need to apologize to GigAg04 for one point. While I disagreed with his absolute statement about the violators in protective orders, I may have given the impression that he is way off base. He is, in fact, much more correct than wrong. The abusers of the system are a very small minority. I have seen a few examples of this type of abuse, and presented one. But somewhere between 90% and 99% of the people who are ordered to stop violence in full protective orders (as opposed to emergency magistrate's orders) are truly abusers and deserve what they get. It is relatively easy to game the one call necessary to really ruin someone's life with the assault charge and emergency order, the long term full order is much harder to abuse.

[gigag04]

No offense whatsoever - you have seen both sides and I just the one.

Agree with the above. To elaborate: cops can do nothing with a restraining order,
and HAVE to take action on a protective order.

Also, getting further off topic, I have taken plenty of calls where the woman gets mad and calls the cops and says "he put his hands on me." Truth is he did nothing of the sort. Some subcultures just use the police presence available at the press of 3 buttons as another arrow in the quiver during an argument.

Also, there are the ones that complain and cry and refuse to leave, but I'm out there every week mediating a verbal argument among drunks.

Drain. Of. Resources.




IIRC, if an Leo has PC, a warrantless arrest can made on a Pro Ord even if it occurred outside of the LEOs presence.



Sorry for typos, I'm on my phone.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Also, getting further off topic, I have taken plenty of calls where the woman gets mad and calls the cops and says "he put his hands on me." Truth is he did nothing of the sort. Some subcultures just use the police presence available at the press of 3 buttons as another arrow in the quiver during an argument.

This is unfortunately very true. In my view, making false allegations of acts that legally constitute "family violence" or sexual assault should be a first degree felony with minimum mandatory prison time of five years. Far too many people (primarily women) use false allegations as a tool or tactic and very few face prosecution.

No, it hasn't happened to me, but I learn of such cases from my colleagues who practice in the criminal court systems.

Chas.

[Venus Pax]

Also, getting further off topic, I have taken plenty of calls where the woman gets mad and calls the cops and says "he put his hands on me." Truth is he did nothing of the sort. Some subcultures just use the police presence available at the press of 3 buttons as another arrow in the quiver during an argument.

This is unfortunately very true. In my view, making false allegations of acts that legally constitute "family violence" or sexual assault should be a first degree felony with minimum mandatory prison time of five years. Far too many people (primarily women) use false allegations as a tool or tactic and very few face prosecution.

No, it hasn't happened to me, but I learn of such cases from my colleagues who practice in the criminal court systems.

Chas.

Early in my teaching career, a male teacher was accused of molesting a female student. She eventually told the police that she made it up, but we all found this deeply disturbing. He had a family, and it could have ruined him.
It also casts doubt in people's minds when a person is truly reaching out for someone to help them out of an abusive situation.