RO abuse

[outhouse]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ca

I believe ion RO,s i believe they do protect victims from possible violenence.

BUT i do believe that the widespread abuse of RO,s by police officers, women and men is completely unacceptable.

1 point is the david letterman RO issued and granted by a viewer.

Not that i would do this but i bet if a person filed a RO against a dead person and the person filing wrote the complaint right it would be granted without question.

any thoughts

 

[Proserpina]

My thoughts are this isn't really the right place to vent.

 

[CdwJava]

BUT i do believe that the widespread abuse of RO,s by police officers, women and men is completely unacceptable.

How can a police officer "abuse" an R/O? The police do not issue these, a judge does. The police are required to enforce them, they do not issue them. In fact, in the case of a domestic violence R/O they are often mandated to arrest the suspect.

1 point is the david letterman RO issued and granted by a viewer.

That was an oddity and unlikely to EVER be repeated again ... the judge just failed to read the darn thing, I think.

But, most temporary R/O's are easily granted based upon an application and affidavit that sounds reasonable. It is the hearing where the rubber hits the road and the plaintiff has to prove the need. Is this abused? Sure. The question then becomes what to do about it?

Not that i would do this but i bet if a person filed a RO against a dead person and the person filing wrote the complaint right it would be granted without question.

Quite possible ... then, of course, the judge just might calp the plaintiff in irons for contempt of court.

- Carl

 

[outhouse]

[[My thoughts are this isn't really the right place to vent.]]

I respect your thoughts on this forum, but facts need to be faced. being passive has never solved a problem like this.

[[How can a police officer "abuse" an R/O?]]
officer asked me if i wanted a RO against the ex since i dialed 911 for her hittings me. I said no i thought things would blow over. the officer then stated he wanted us apart and asked her to leave she said no. officer asked me to leave i said no. second officer smirked at me and said you should have listened to my partner when he asked you to leave. first officer bated ex with spousal rape charges [ex even admit's they did this] ex even told officers she let me have sex with her. The officers wanted us apart and got what they wanted.

[[The police do not issue these, a judge does]]
yes based on police statements

[[ in the case of a domestic violence R/O they are often mandated to arrest the suspect]].
not in Ca

[[what to do about it?]] thats a great question and i wish i knew. I know being passive or turning your back wont solve it. I know public awareness and learning about the subject are key. More men need to be educated about this issue since women file %85 of the time.

[[Quite possible ... ]]
better then rubber stamping a TRO/RO going against the constitution of being innocent until proven guilty. A judge should take a closer look at these to protect the innocent parties involved. rubber stamping justice is a tradgety

 

[Proserpina]

[[My thoughts are this isn't really the right place to vent.]]

I respect your thoughts on this forum, but facts need to be faced. being passive has never solved a problem like this.

...and this is a legal advice forum, not a blog or support forum

Whether I'm passive or not facing facts is irrelevant, and believe me I do agree that some people abuse the concept of ROs. T

 

[Isis1]

[[My thoughts are this isn't really the right place to vent.]]

I respect your thoughts on this forum, but facts need to be faced. being passive has never solved a problem like this.

[[How can a police officer "abuse" an R/O?]]
officer asked me if i wanted a RO against the ex since i dialed 911 for her hittings me. I said no i thought things would blow over. the officer then stated he wanted us apart and asked her to leave she said no. officer asked me to leave i said no. second officer smirked at me and said you should have listened to my partner when he asked you to leave. first officer bated ex with spousal rape charges [ex even admit's they did this] ex even told officers she let me have sex with her. The officers wanted us apart and got what they wanted.

[[The police do not issue these, a judge does]]
yes based on police statements

[[ in the case of a domestic violence R/O they are often mandated to arrest the suspect]].
not in Ca

[[what to do about it?]] thats a great question and i wish i knew. I know being passive or turning your back wont solve it. I know public awareness and learning about the subject are key. More men need to be educated about this issue since women file %85 of the time.

[[Quite possible ... ]]
better then rubber stamping a TRO/RO going against the constitution of being innocent until proven guilty. A judge should take a closer look at these to protect the innocent parties involved. rubber stamping justice is a tradgety

whoa. whoa. whoa. abusing a restraining order? you called 911. you asked for police intervention. when it showed up, you say nevermind? why wasted time calling in the first place. don't call 911 to waste time when they could be answering a more important call. YOU should have pressed charges if you were in fact hit. you chose not to leave. someone had to be removed.

 

[CdwJava]

officer asked me if i wanted a RO against the ex since i dialed 911 for her hittings me. I said no i thought things would blow over. the officer then stated he wanted us apart and asked her to leave she said no. officer asked me to leave i said no. second officer smirked at me and said you should have listened to my partner when he asked you to leave. first officer bated ex with spousal rape charges [ex even admit's they did this] ex even told officers she let me have sex with her. The officers wanted us apart and got what they wanted.

What does that have to do with an officer abusing an R/O?

The officer should have arrested one of you - whoever they saw as the primary aggressor in the battery. In any event, the officers cannot issue an R/O in California.

Unless the restraining order is an Emergency Protective Order, the affidavit is solely the responsibility of the plaintiff (the protected party). In the case of the EPO the officer articulates the circumstances to a judge who then makes the call. The EPO is good for only 5 days so if the victim of the DV does not want to make it last any longer, they simply do not have to go to court and apply for an R/O.

[[ in the case of a domestic violence R/O they are often mandated to arrest the suspect]].
not in Ca

Huh ... that's odd since I AM an officer (and a supervisor) in CA.

From PC 836 (laws of arrest):

When a peace officer is responding to a call alleging a violation of a domestic violence protective or restraining order ... the officer shall, consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 13701, make a lawful arrest of the person without a warrant and take that person into custody whether or not the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer ...​

So, yeah, they are often mandated to make the arrest for a violation of a DV TRO.

better then rubber stamping a TRO/RO going against the constitution of being innocent until proven guilty. A judge should take a closer look at these to protect the innocent parties involved. rubber stamping justice is a tradgety

That's what the hearing is for. The alternative is what we once had - violence and mayhem committed on victims even as they recanted.

- Carl

 

[outhouse]

[[whoa. whoa. whoa. abusing a restraining order? you called 911. you asked for police intervention. when it showed up, you say nevermind]]

first and formost i called 911 to stop my ex's domestic violence in front of our child period! and it worked. I did not want a RO or press charges because i just wanted the violence to stop. I did not say nevermind as you put it.

[[YOU should have pressed charges if you were in fact hit]] you know as well as i do it does not matter what i want. they took pictures of me with no damage or marks and cited her and her alone . The DA has controll over this and stated there was not enough evidence to prosecute. [weather i wanted to press charges or not] ex would not have been arrested. your point is moot.

[[[What does that have to do with an officer abusing an R/O?]]] the officers admitted they wanted the RO and without there false representation of something that never happened that they helped to create a TRO would not have been issued by the judge. [they bated the wife and lead her, no wait held her hand down the right path to a serious crime but would not arrest me for the said serious crime because they got the RO they wanted] when the ex said she wanted a RO the officers figured out a way for her to get one. thats abuse. CdwJava i follow and respect your post and if i didnt see this with my own eyes i would not have believed what happened.

[[From PC 836 (laws of arrest):]] my fault on that one, when i said [not in Ca] i was refering to a domestic violence call only and nothing to do with a RO

[[The officer should have arrested one of you]] they have been to the house 4 times for DV and since the wife cant hurt or leave marks no arrest were ever made. i have defended myself but never struck her. neither of us had physical marks indicating injuries consistent with a pysical altercation for all 4 events.

[[Huh ... that's odd since I AM an officer (and a supervisor) in CA.]] im well aware of this fact and have the utmost respect for the law enforcement community.

[[That's what the hearing is for.]] ya its been 8 months and though my civil rights have been trampled on i still have not had a hearing yet. arraignment yes. It keeps being put out on the calander without my consent.

 

[outhouse]

Ill give you that the officers had nothing to do with the court ordered RO. this is obvious.

my complaint about police abuse and its my fault for not stating correctly. I feel in my case the officers abused the whole TRO proccess to spit us up that night so they would "not have to come back out to the same address" [there exact words]. its pretty bad that me and the ex agree on absolutly nothing but even she admits and agrees the police bated her for the TRO.

she made the mistake [not a mistake yet for her] of going down to the courthouse the next day and filing for the permanent RO to gain the upper hand in the custody battle and to be outright vindictive.

 

[CdwJava]

first and formost i called 911 to stop my ex's domestic violence in front of our child period! and it worked. I did not want a RO or press charges because i just wanted the violence to stop.

You do not have to press charges, the state of California does that. If you articulate that an assault has occurred, the officers SHOULD have written something, up at the very least. Which, apparently, is what they did.

the officers admitted they wanted the RO and without there false representation of something that never happened that they helped to create a TRO would not have been issued by the judge.

Was this an EPO or a TRO? An EPO is generated by a call to the judge b7y the police ... it lasts for 5 court days or 7 calendar days ... the TRO is generated by an application by the plaintiff and has no input by the officers. if it was an EPO it died when/if the plaintiff did not seek a TRO. If the plaintiff sought a TRO that had NOTHING to do with the cops.

my fault on that one, when i said [not in Ca] i was refering to a domestic violence call only and nothing to do with a RO

As for DV calls, the law states that agencies shall develop policies reflecting a pro-arrest policy seeking to identify and arrest the primary aggressor. So even with DV there is a pro arrest policy, if not a mandatory state law.

they have been to the house 4 times for DV and since the wife cant hurt or leave marks no arrest were ever made. i have defended myself but never struck her. neither of us had physical marks indicating injuries consistent with a pysical altercation for all 4 events.

Physical marks (corporal injury) could be charged as a felony. They only need for one of you to claim to have been punched, pushed, grabbed, etc. for them to act on a misdemeanor DV battery per PC 243(e). Personally, they should have started arresting one of you before they got to the 4th call. Once one party alleged being battered in any way by the other, the arrests should have begun.

The interesting thing about DV is that it also gets CPS involved and all parties need to start jumping through hoops if CPS takes sufficient interest.

[[That's what the hearing is for.]] ya its been 8 months and though my civil rights have been trampled on i still have not had a hearing yet. arraignment yes. It keeps being put out on the calander without my consent.

Your wife sought a TRO and the hearing has been put off for 8 months? On whose request?

Do you have an attorney?

Now, if you also have a criminal case pending (and if you had an arraignment, it implied you do), it may be put off as a result of the criminal matter ... perhaps your attorney doesn't want to have the hearing until after the criminal matter (so that some things are not made part of the record). You might want to ask the attorney about that.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

its pretty bad that me and the ex agree on absolutly nothing but even she admits and agrees the police bated her for the TRO.

More than 75% of DV victims recant within 24 hours ... in San Diego County some years back, about 1/4 of those recanting alleged the officers coerced them into making a written or recorded statement, and 1/4 claimed the officers hit on or flirted with them ... these claims are not unusual, and are generally better than her admitting to her abuser that she actually sought the order. Perhaps they did push her, but if they did I suspect it was because they were tired of coming out there and may have even suggested that continued responses for DV could result in them taking the kid or kids.

she made the mistake [not a mistake yet for her] of going down to the courthouse the next day and filing for the permanent RO to gain the upper hand in the custody battle and to be outright vindictive.

Then that ball is in her court, not the officers'.

- Carl

 

[outhouse]

[[ but if they did I suspect it was because they were tired of coming out there and may have even suggested that continued responses for DV could result in them taking the kid or kids.]]

very true and the same reason i would not file a complaint against them.

thank you for reminding me