Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
11. Wrong again
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:38 PM
Apr 2016
Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process

They don't violate due process, as there is notice served on the party and an opportunity for the person against whom one is ordered to appear before a court to have the order lifted or to challenge the issuance. Further, TROs are issued upon a showing of a prima facie reason under the law to issue such an order, either to maintain the status quo during an impending legal matter, or as a protective order to prevent someone from coming to potential harm.

Here in WA, this matter was addressed in State v. Karas, 108 Wn.2d 692, 700, 32 P.3d. 1016 (2001):

"Considering the minor curtailment of liberty imposed by the protection order and the significant public and governmental interest in reducing the potential for irreparable injury, the Act's provision of notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate satisfies the inherently flexible demands of procedural due process."

Due process is always a question of (1) whether process is due, and (2) if so, what amount of process is due. Whether or not process is due here is obvious, since there is a curtailment of liberty. The amount of process due has been deemed sufficiently met by notice-and-hearing provisions.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-temporary-restraining-orders-allowed-since-they-violate-a-persons-freedom-of-movement-without-due-process#!n=12

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

the Constitution State like the fifth amendment about as much as the second gejohnston Apr 2016 #1
Yeah, wait 'til the commit a real crime. Like murder. Then after the trial and conviction flamin lib Apr 2016 #2
What crimes are you not yet guilty of? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #3
male DVs don't often use guns, gejohnston Apr 2016 #5
Absolutely . . . NOT flamin lib Apr 2016 #6
Ahh, so nobody elses rights matter. beevul Apr 2016 #7
turn in your liberal card, gejohnston Apr 2016 #10
Sigh, everybody is a Constitutional Scholar. flamin lib Apr 2016 #12
not confiscation of property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #14
No sir. Guns everywhere all the time without concern for public or personal safery flamin lib Apr 2016 #15
No, I'm consistent about everything gejohnston Apr 2016 #16
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson flamin lib Apr 2016 #19
key word being "foolish" gejohnston Apr 2016 #24
At least you were obvious trying to falsely attribute... beevul Apr 2016 #28
What's wrong with taking property? scscholar Apr 2016 #26
sometimes it is destroyed, or stolen by cops gejohnston Apr 2016 #27
"Preventive detention" is what the Nixon administration advocated... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #8
I support the 4th Amendment and probable cause. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #9
It's called due process, as others have pointed out. theatre goon Apr 2016 #17
A tro is due process. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #18
Sure... theatre goon Apr 2016 #20
No. You are wrong and no amount of reason will convince you otherwise so I'm done with you. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #21
Funny stuff. theatre goon Apr 2016 #22
Wrong again SecularMotion Apr 2016 #11
not the same thing, gejohnston Apr 2016 #13
Still wrong again. flamin lib Apr 2016 #23
I did, still doesn't say anything about property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #25
Wonder if she realized she also had the right to own a firearm? ileus Apr 2016 #4
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»House Passes Gun Bill: Fi...»Reply #11