Gun Control

New Data Suggest Florida Cops Have Broad Power to Take Away People's Second Amendment Rights

In Broward County, judges almost never reject police petitions for gun confiscation orders.

|

A new report on Florida's "red flag" law claims Broward County's experience with gun confiscation orders confirms that they prevent suicides and homicides while guaranteeing due process for people accused of posing a threat to themselves or others. But the analysis by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (GLC), based on 255 police petitions filed in the year ending March 9, 2019, actually reinforces the civil liberties concerns raised by red flag laws. In particular, it shows that the judges who are supposed to decide whether someone poses enough of a threat to justify suspending his Second Amendment rights almost always defer to the conclusions reached by law enforcement agencies.

Florida, like every other state with a red flag law, allows police to obtain temporary, ex parte orders forbidding people to possess firearms. When police file such petitions, the respondent has no advance notice and no opportunity to rebut the allegations against him. The orders, which last up to 14 days, are supposed to be based on "reasonable cause to believe that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury" to himself or others "in the near future." In the cases covered by the GLC report, police always sought ex parte orders, judges always granted them, and they did so "very quickly," sometimes within hours.

Despite the wording of the statute, it seems that neither police nor judges are distinguishing between people who pose a risk that is "significant" (whatever that means) but not imminent and people who are apt to harm themselves or others "in the near future," such that waiting for a hearing would be unacceptably dangerous. The routine, automatic issuance of ex parte orders means that when a respondent finally gets his day in court, the playing field is slanted sharply against him. The judge is deciding whether to maintain the presumptively protective status quo or change course and give the respondent legal access to guns he might use to kill himself or someone else.

Not surprisingly, the information obtained by the GLC shows that judges are rarely willing to take that chance. When police sought final orders, which they did in 93 percent of the cases, judges issued them 96 percent of the time in cases where the outcome was known. Final orders, which typically last a year and can be extended for another year, are supposed to be based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent "poses a significant danger of causing personal injury" to himself or others. Theoretically, that test is much harder to satisfy than the "reasonable cause" standard for an ex parte order (although the threat no longer has to be "in the near future"). Yet respondents persuaded judges to restore their Second Amendment rights just 4 percent of the time.

Respondents usually did not even try. "In 76% of cases," the GLC report says, "respondents agreed to the final orders prior to the hearing." In other words, "full hearings where both parties had the opportunity to present evidence in front of a judge occurred in only 24% of cases." The GLC says "the frequency with which final orders were agreed to by stipulation without a hearing likely minimized the administrative burden these orders placed on the courts while still providing the key elements of due process and ensuring that respondents had notice and an opportunity to be heard."

How can there be due process when three-quarters of the respondents never even presented their side of the story? You might surmise that respondents gave up without a fight because the police had strong evidence against them, but that is not necessarily true. In these cases, people who have already lost their Second Amendment rights are confronting a complicated and intimidating process, and they are doing so without the aid of a lawyer unless they can afford one and find one in time. Colorado is the only state with a red flag law where respondents have a right to court-appointed counsel if they can't pay for a lawyer or choose not to hire one.

David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute, notes that prosecutors in Connecticut have been known to actively discourage respondents from seeking legal representation. When law enforcement officials "arm-twist respondents into giving up before the hearing," he says, that hardly proves the government's case was strong.

"A lot of people are terrified of court," says Kendra Parris, an Orlando lawyer who specializes in red flag cases. "A lot of people think that if they lose, they'll be arrested. It's not like people understand these things or what's going on, especially not low-income people without a bunch of free time to surf the internet and [do] research. Sometimes people get confused about the date, or can't find a lawyer in time and give up."

Parris also notes that "some of the cities in Broward County are having their officers show up with the sheriff during service of the ex parte order and petition with a stipulation in hand." She adds that "some of them appear to be giving the respondents legal advice" by saying, for example, that they can still appeal even if they sign the stipulation. "This is not due process," she says. "It's pressure and intimidation."

Respondents face better odds in some of the other states with red flag laws. Connecticut judges ordered guns returned about a third of the time in cases where the outcome was known, according to a 2014 Connecticut Law Review article (although outcomes were reported in less than 30 percent of cases). Data from Maryland indicate that respondents have a similar chance of success there. In Indiana, according to a 2015 study reported in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law, gun owners generally prevailed when they showed up for hearings. During the last 71 months covered by the eight-year study, gun owners won every contested case.

The much lower success rate for respondents in Broward County, which is consistent with statewide data for Florida, could mean that police are doing a very good job of investigating and substantiating the risks that people pose, so that judges generally do not see any reason to second-guess them. "We don't know the screening process on the police side," Kopel notes. "Some departments may just file a petition upon any request. Others may conduct their own investigations and decide not to file."

The GLC says 55 percent of the Broward County cases, which include petitions filed by 14 city police departments as well as the county sheriff, involved homicide threats, 48 percent involved suicide threats, and 18 percent involved both. The report describes about half a dozen cases with compelling facts. One involved an "easily agitated" young man who routinely brought guns and a "heavy workout plate" to church despite requests that he stop doing so, expressed hostility toward organized religion, and talked about committing acts of violence. Another case involved a man who owned 40 guns and "had made multiple threats about harming himself and attempting suicide." Readers are invited to conclude that all of the cases were as clear-cut as these, which seems doubtful.

Judging from the GLC report, Florida is giving police a lot of power to determine who should be allowed to retain his Second Amendment rights. That faith can be misplaced, as illustrated by some of the cases I discussed in a recent Reason feature story about red flag laws. Even when police officers are conscientious, they may err on the side of seeking orders, since the prospect of a preventable suicide or homicide tends to loom larger than the chance that someone will unfairly lose his gun rights for a year or two.

Unfortunately, judges, who are supposed to act as a check against hasty police conclusions, have the same bias. Parris says the GLC study "pretty much confirms my suspicion and fear that the courts aren't actually reviewing these [applications]—just rubber-stamping them—and/or that courts are reluctant to push back against a petition from law enforcement."

[This post has been updated with an additional quotation from Kendra Parris and revised to clarify Colorado's provision regarding court-appointed counsel.]

NEXT: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Wants to Use Commercial Rent Control to Save Small Businesses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All gun control laws are unconstitutional.

    Red flag laws are unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    Why anyone is surprised at this. Lefties found a new way to steal people’s guns. Of course they are going to run this out until the wheels fall off.

    1. Furthermore, any judge who approves this should be immediately impeached, removed from office, or wood chipped.

      These judges, cops, and lawyers are violating the 2nd Amendment and likely the 5th Amendment that these people are at least entitled to just compensation for their property being taken.

      1. Agree wholeheartedly on all counts.

        1. Also agree. This shit will not stop until we are disarmed, or you know what else.

  2. It’s Broward county, so I’m gonna have to assume that the cops and judges are purposely working together to disarm the entire county.

    1. disarm the entire county – – –
      Except the cops and judges and Bubba.

    2. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours………clickclick>

  3. In fairness, a convoluted phrase like “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ” is pretty hard to understand.
    Kind of like the equally difficult phrase ” DUE PROCESS “.

    1. To be fair, these are the same brainiacs that thing they can improve the economy by destroying millions of “heretical” jobs, and then allow any Tom, Dick, or Jose in across the border to further flood the market with the unemployed.

      1. Hey, government regulation destroying jobs and subsidizing illegals to fill jobs is just the invisible hand of the free market at work.

    2. No means no!

    3. It’s not convoluted at all.

      It’s only convoluted to those who want to deceive.

  4. Judges acting as a rubber stamp for local law enforcment? This is unprecedented!

    1. New Data Suggest Florida Cops Have Broad Power to Take Away People’s Second Amendment Rights

      I read the Brickbats, it’s not news that cops regularly abuse their authority.

  5. The race is on. Democrats are competing to see which state will confiscate the most firearms before the Supreme Court strikes down these unconstitutional laws. In every case thus far, accused persons are free to do what they usually do while law enforcement indexes, stores and protects growing rooms full of firearms.

    A red flag law has a surface appeal that vanishes when one thinks about it. This notion transfers power from licensed psychiatrists to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts. Judges, policemen, neighbors and classmates are not qualified to make such decisions.

    Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury. Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself (not against the law) or others, he should be legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. The line of inheritance codified in state laws determines the legal custodian of any property.

    As an analogy, if someone sips too much wine with dinner at home, a crotchety old aunt might be empowered to call the police and have them impound every motorized vehicle from the homeowner — just in case he or she might decide to drive somewhere.

  6. The orders, which last up to 14 days, are supposed to be based on “reasonable cause to believe that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury” to himself or others “in the near future.”

    Obviously the Broward County police should be “red-flagged”.

    1. Did you mean flogged?

  7. So, I assume that, before someone robs a house in Broward County, they report a “red flag” on the homeowner and make sure all the guns and sharp pointy things are gone before they get there.

  8. “…ex parte orders forbidding people to possess firearms. When police file such petitions, the respondent has no advance notice and no opportunity to rebut…”some of the cities in Broward County are having their officers show up with the sheriff during service of the ex parte order and petition with a stipulation in hand.”

    Yep, no one likes an ambush more than the cops. Aren’t ambushes the tactics of cowards or is that just when cops are on the receiving end?

  9. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.

    ………………… Read more

  10. Watching gun nuts whine, rant, and cry is entertaining.

    1. You are just a tiresome shitbag.

    2. From where I sit, the the real nuts who whine, rant and cry are the aggressors against the 2A.

      Gun owners aren’t bothering anyone. You’re the one doing the illegal harassing.

      They’re just defending themselves from shitstained bootlicking tyrannical bigoted statists like you.

      That’s all people need. Jerk offs like you knowing where the guns are.

      1. To quote myself. “From where I sit, the the real nuts who whine, rant and cry are the aggressors against the 2A.”

        Gun control advocates is what I was gunning for.

  11. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……. Read more

  12. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….
     
    COPY HERE☛☛☛    www.cashin3.com

  13. Nice article. But the headline is wrong in a way that Reason used to care about. The state cannot “Take Away” a right, it can merely interfere with or, ahem, infringe it.

  14. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you….
     
    COPY HERE☛☛☛    www.cashin3.com

  15. Do you people not yet understand that Broward County is a suburb of Newark and any attempt to undermine the 2A is a goddamn Yankee conspiracy?

  16. Sullum notes that 76% of subjects of Broward County ERPOs don’t contest the final year-long gun-restriction order. However, he doesn’t mention that, according to the Giffords Center report, only 53% of the temporary orders actually led to the confiscation of guns (p. 20). It seems likely that many of the remaining 47% had no real interest in gun acqusition, so didn’t choose to spend the money and time to protect a right that they didn’t intend to exercise.

  17. When selling red-flag laws to the public, their advocates invariable bring up the purported high risk of homicide: without laws like these, you’re likely to be gunned down over your morning latte at Starbucks.

    In fact, from the Giffords Center report, it appears that nearly half of the ERPOs were issued due to the perceived threat of suicide. On p. 15 of the report, we’re told that “More than half of cases—55%—involved a respondent threatening homicide”.

    This strikes me as conflating two very different things. Homicide without the consent of the party killed is indisputably a violation of that party’s right to life, and it’s appropriate for the law to try to prevent it. However, suicide is an exercise of one’s own right to life, which includes the right to stop living.

    1. Dammit, Reason, why can’t we edit our comments? “Invariably” in that first sentence, not “invariable”.

  18. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow details
    >>>>>>. ONLINE WORK

  19. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this…. Read more  

  20. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this…..Read MoRe

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.