DISHONEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUIDELINES

This page was last updated on Tuesday May 25, 2004

Several centuries ago, officers of the British crown had unlimited power to search where they pleased and seize imported goods that violated British tax laws. In England, this sweeping power took the form of a general warrant and in colonial America they took the form of a writ of assistance. American colonialists of what now the United States of America hated the nearly unlimited power of writs of assistance. To protect the people from these abuses innate to such power, the constitutional framers included the probable cause requirement with the ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has two provisions. The first says that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Joining the first, the second provision says that a competent authority cannot issue a warrant unless probable cause exists.

A warrant is a written order from a competent judicial authority directing a person or persons to perform a particular act or acts. This warrant must describe the place that they will search and the persons or things that they will seize. Also, the warrant must contain an affirmation or oath by the person requesting the warrant, stating probable cause.

A Constitutional preference of arrest upon a warrant does exist. Exigent circumstances do occur where obtaining a warrant is not practicable and the Supreme court has held that the establishment of probable cause must precede an arrest without a warrant. This means that an officer must observe the actual commission of a crime in her or his physical presence.

Probable cause does not mean more likely than not. It is the knowledge of sufficient and necessary facts to compel a reasonable person to believe that a crime occurred and the suspected person committed the crime. I prefer the definition that states: Probable cause is clear and convincing evidence to compel a reasonable person to believe that a crime occurred and that the suspected person committed the crime.

Probable cause is a lesser standard of evidence of than that of the 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' requirement. However, both doctrines require that judges, investigators, and law enforcement officers maintain qualities of caution, objectivity, and truthfulness without personal gain or malice. Every report that contains a lie against the accused or quotes or paraphrases an accuser's statements while ignoring those of the accused is clear and convincing evidence of malice. Current law and the courts encourage women to fabricate evidence and lie despite the existence of the 14th Amendment. The rewards are substantial and the risks are few.

Most domestic violence laws and enforcement guidelines appear to contain gender neutral language such as victim and abuser. The discredited Duluth Model defines victims as females and abusers as males. Those who adopted this model often promote the false notion that 95% of all family abuse and violence are by men and so suspects are males.   The following set of guidelines is an amalgam Massachusetts guidelines and California law.  The ninth guideline shows the true intent of the authors.   My own comments are contained within blue shaded boxes.

1.  The uncorroborated statements by a victim can be probable cause that a crime occurred. The victim's statement does not have to refer to an actual episode of violence or abuse. It can relate her fear or expectation of some future act of violence or abuse by the abuser.

  • The victim does have to live in the abuser's dwelling.

  • The victim does need the right to live in the abuser's dwelling.

  • The abuser's behavior is any behavior that a court has or could enjoin.

This says that probable cause may be based on the unsupported and unproven statements of a female or her speculation of what a male might do in the future.   Paraphrasing the first and second guidelines, they can be interpreted to say that the accuser does not live in another's dwelling to have the right to live there.  Nazi and communist officials often confiscated property that was not their own.

2. The decision to arrest must be based on whether or not probable cause exists that the crime occurred, not on whether or not the victim wishes to seek complaints or wishes to testify at a future date.
A good indication of perjury is where one wants to accuse another but does not want to appear in court.  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to confront the accuser and the witnesses against him.

3. When assessing credibility to establish that probable cause exists, officers should remember that a victim who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who suffers from mental illness, is not an inherently unreliable witness.

4. An abuser who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who suffers from certain mental illnesses, may pose a greater risk to the safety of the victim and the officers.
Guideline three and guideline four are classic examples of misandry. A person who suffers from a mental disorder can be unreliable, especially persons with antisocial, histrionic, narcissistic, or borderline personality disorder. Any person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol or suffers from mental illness may pose a greater risk to the safety to others. The officer should consider what the accuser gains by making the accusation.

5. Officers should also remember that displaying a calm demeanor following a violent assault is usual for an  abuser.

This is true for victims and abusers.

6. In the interest of immediacy, and the statutory mandate to arrest, officers will arrest of any person the officer witnesses or have probable cause to believe has violated an emergency, temporary or permanent vacate, refrain from abuse, stay away or no contact order or judgment, a suspension and surrender order, or protection order issued by other jurisdictions.
This sentence is gobbledygook.  I have seen forgeries and after the fact alterations to court orders and documents that have changed their legal effect.

7. When no restraining or court orders in effect, arrest will be the preferred response whenever an officer observes or has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony or has committed an assault and battery of a family or household member or has committed a crime or involving abuse.
Dictatorial feminist literature instructs women to make a scene, destroy property, and blame her husband or male domestic  partner. Vicious and angry women destroy property and sometimes self-inflict injuries to lead a law enforcement officer to believe that the accused cause this damage or injury.

8. When probable cause to arrest exists, and the suspect has fled the scene: The officer will have the dispatcher advise area patrols, including other jurisdictions where they believe the suspect to be going, in order for those patrols to attempt to find and arrest the suspect.
She starts an argument and he leaves to allow her to cool off. Out of vengeance or probable profit, she calls the police and makes up a story. The officer sees that he is not home and so presumes that he has fled for reason of guilt.  Dishonest women lie about paternity, infidelity, rape, child sexual battery, and spousal or partner abuse.

9. The victim's safety should be considered in the timing of the service of the order. Officers should encourage the victim to contact an advocate (through the District Attorney's office or battered women's program) to develop a safety plan around the service of the order.

This statement shows the intent.  No one sends a battered man to a woman's program because they do not accept men and no comparable resources exist for men.

 

These guidelines are not gender neutral. They are an expression of hatred toward males. Practical experience says so and the application of the law verifies this position.  Dictatorial feminists have complained about male code words for years when in fact they were coining code words.

California Code nearly always refer to battered women's groups, or shelters, or advocates. Never does the code refer to such services for men, it ignores battered men.  It mentions payments to women's groups but not to men's groups though the victim is male.  This is the condition of California Code and the laws of other States.

 

Edward S. Nunes

To view similar topics at this web site, please click here.