CdwJava
Senior Member
The court notifying law enforcement that the defendant has failed to comply with the court order tends to help.its_kathie said:In order to enforce, one must first investigate. There is serious lack of investigation here in the U.S.
The Judicial Administration states grounds for reasonable cause is: DOJ Armed and Prohibited File (or) vic_s prior knowledge and prep_s lack of surrender (or) the ex_s testimony...any one of these brings cause for investigation. What more does law enforcement want in order to investigate: the accused to stand at the door with a gun in his hand. Might as well, for lack of effort otherwise.
Please note that the order requires the defendant to present proof to the court - NOT to the police department. The police are NOT the court, nor do we have a liason sitting at the court checking to see if any particular TRO defendant has failed to comply with the firearms requirement. The police are not mind readers and they have to be notified that a violation of this requirement has taken place.
We do not have the manpower to follow up on every TRO issued within our jurisdiction to check on firearms compliance. In fact, we do not always get notified that one HAS been issued. While the plaintiff is directed to deliver a copy of the order to each agency where they live and work, this does not always come to pass. And even when it does, it does not automatically trigger a follow-on investigation to check for compliance. Perhaps if I had the staffing to dedicate someone to a DV unit, I could accomplish this. But, with a 16% vacancy in staffing, I can't dedicate someone to something that has not been a huge issue within my jurisdiction. Perhaps if we had a great number of reports or firearms-related incidents I could see my way clear to remove a detective from child abuse follow-up to DV follow-up, but as it is, the former is a greater priority than the latter.
Then you would be wrong.I feel law enforcement would rather spend 10 hours on someone throwing rocks at cars then 10 minutes looking into a DV victim's safety.
Someone throwing rocks at cars is pretty simple and requires little follow-up. Most DV cases are volatile, involve uncooperative or contrary parties, and involve few - if any - independent witnesses.
Dying "in mass"?It's all a matter of perspective, they don't feel a woman's safety and threat of death is worth the effort to investigate. That's why people are dying out here in mass at the hands of a violent abuser.
It seems you are advocating an unconstitutional approach to a problem that is not as simple as pointing a finger and saying he is in violation. Here are some of the issues:
- Most firearms are long guns - long guns are not registered with DOJ, thus no real record is kept. If the protected party says he has them, and the restrained party says he does not, lacking independent witnesses to the contrary a search warrant is not likely forthcoming.
- Handgus may be registered with DOJ but a high percentage of those files are NOT up to date and accurate. This is due largely to improper/unlawful transfers to family members and unreported thefts. Whether a DOJ printout by itself is sufficient for a search warrant is questionable and will vary by jurisdiction.
- If no guns are found after the service of a search warrant, an arrest cannot generally be made on the unsubstantiated belief that the defendant MIGHT have squirreled a gun away somewhere else! The DA still has to prove a case at trial and the police still need to have probable cause to make the arrest.
We would likely "long form" the complaint to the DA and then to the court. Again, if he failed to turn the info in to the court (as specified by court order) and the COURT did not see fit to remand him right then and there, I'd be hard pressed to justify an arrest afterwards on the same fact set.The court order clearly states all weapons must be surrendered to police or a licensed dealer. What is to stop any and all restrained parties from doing this? Is this lack of inaction causing nullification of the law?
What would you do?
- Carl