Here we describe the incidents that precipitated the ERPO petitions, the courts’ decisions about those petitions at each hearing, and the firearms removed in response to those court orders.
ERPO Petitioners and Respondents
In 2017 there were 3 ERPO petitions filed in King County, Washington; in 2018, there were 72. Respondents were primarily male and white (Table 1) with an average age of 42; most (n=43, 57%) respondents had multiple law enforcement encounters noted in the court records (not included in the tables) prior to the incident leading to the ERPO petition noted in the court records. Relative to the King County population, (US Census Bureau) ERPO respondents were more often male (84% vs. 50%), and white (75% vs. 67%) or black (12% vs. 7%). Of the 75 petitions, family and partners were the petitioners for two. The remaining 73-law enforcement-initiated petitions resulted from calls for assistance most often initiated by family or friends of the respondents (n=38, 51%) or the respondents themselves (n=13, 17%). Among the family or friends who called law enforcement, most (84%) were eligible petitioners under the law because of their familial relationship to the respondent. Whether they were aware of ERPOs when they called law enforcement, or knew they were eligible petitioners, is not consistently noted in the court records. The remainder of the calls to law enforcement came from other groups, as noted in Table 1.
Table 1. ERPO respondents and petitioners
Descriptor
|
N (%)
|
Respondent Mean (SD) and Median Age
|
41.6 (16.3), 37.5
|
Respondent Sex
Male
Female
|
63 (84%)
12 (16%)
|
Respondent Race
White
Black
Asian
Other
Unknown
|
56 (75%)
9 (12%)
4 (5%)
2 (3%)
4 (5%)
|
Petitioner
Seattle Police Department
Other King County Law Enforcement Agency
Family Member of Respondent
|
46 (61%)
27 (36%)
2 (3%)
|
Petitioner was notified by:
Friend or family member
Eligible Petitioner
Non-Eligible Petitioner
Respondent
Members of the Public
Neighbors
Health Care Agency
Law Enforcement Agency
Other or Unknown
|
38 (51%)
32 (43%)
6 (8%)
13 (17%)
9 (12%)
6(8%)
4 (5%)
1(1%)
4 (5%)
|
Dangerous Behaviors that Precipitated ERPO Petitions
The 75 petitions filed described respondents’ risk as to “themselves only” in 30 cases (40%), to “others only” in 20 cases (27%) and “to themselves and others” in 25 cases (33%) (Table 2.) The three most common dangerous behaviors we coded, based on descriptions of events that precipitated the ERPO filings noted in the court records, varied across these three risk profiles. Among the 30 respondents posing a risk to themselves only, each of their court records included a current, explicit expressed desire, intention or action to end their life; 14 (47%) noted substance use that caused concern among those on the scene of the precipitating event; and eight (27%) included brandishing a firearm. For the 20 respondents deemed to be a risk to others only, ERPO court documents for 18 (90%) cases included threats or acts of violence; 12 (60%) included reports of brandishing a firearm; and 10 (50%) had a history of law enforcement encounters (arrest only, or arrest with conviction). The 25 respondents posing a risk to both themselves and others had on average the highest number of dangerous behaviors coded, with court records noting a current explicit expression to end their life among most (n=16, 64%); substance use that caused concern among those on the scene in 15 (60%) cases; and 14 (56%) with past law enforcement criminal encounters (Table 2). While family members and friends who initiated the calls for assistance that preceded ERPO petitions most often (n=18, 47%) reported respondent self-harm risks, respondents who initiated calls for assistance were almost equally at risk of self-harm (n=5, 38%), harm to others (n=4, 31%) and both (n=4, 31%). Those at risk of suicide self-reported directly to law enforcement, indirectly through a crisis hotline in three cases, or expressed suicidal intent while being arrested for driving under the influence. The other eight respondents who self-reported contacted law enforcement with complaints about others’ risky behaviors (n=3), or threatening to harm others (n=5).
Five (7%) of these cases met Wintemute’s definition of mass shooting threat. (Wintemute et al. 2019) All of these respondents threatened to shoot and kill specific groups (i.e. law enforcement, school communities) and two respondents additionally threatened violence against the public generally. In two cases, the threatened settings were evacuated in response to the threats. Court records note that all of these respondents expressed an intention to buy firearms. There are no references to any of these respondents already possessing firearms prior to the petition or to law enforcement removing firearms as part of ERPO service, indicating one or more other required factors were present that warranted a prohibition on purchase and future possession nonetheless.
Table 2 – Petitioners’ dangerous behaviors noted in court records
Risk Factor
|
Risk to Self only
N=30 (40%)
|
Risk to Others only
N=20 (27%)
|
Risk to Self and Others
N=25 (33%)
|
Total
N=75
|
Suicide risk
Yes
Explicit behaviors
Implicit behaviors
No or Unknown
|
30 (100%)
30 (100%)
0
0
|
0
0
0
20 (100%)
|
25 (100%)
16 (64%)
9 (36%)
0 (0%)
|
55 (73%)
46 (61%)
9 (12%)
20 (27%)
|
Risky Substance Use
Yes, Substance(s):
Alcohol
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
Opioids
Illicit Drugs
Other/Unknown
No or Unknown
|
14 (47%)
13 (43%)
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
2 (7%)
16 (53%)
|
6 (30%)
5 (25%)
3 (15%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
14 (70%)
|
15 (60%)
10 (40%)
5 (20%)
4 (16%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
3 (12%)
10 (40%)
|
35 (47%)
28 (37%)
9 (12%)
6 (8%)
3 (4%)
3 (4%)
6 (8%)
40 (53%)
|
Threatening violence or violent behaviors
Yes
No or Unknown
|
3 (10%)
27 (90%)
|
18 (90%)
2 (10%)
|
14 (56%)
11 (44%)
|
35 (47%)
40 (53%)
|
Criminal History
Yes
No or Unknown
|
4 (13%)
26 (87%)
|
10 (50%)
10 (50%)
|
14 (56%)
11 (44%)
|
28 (37%)
47 (63%)
|
Brandished firearm
Yes
No or Unknown
|
8 (27%)
22 (73%)
|
12 (60%)
8 (40%)
|
7 (28%)
18 (72%)
|
27 (36%)
48 (64%)
|
Irrational/erratic behaviors
Yes
No or Unknown
|
2 (7%)
28 (93%)
|
9 (45%)
11 (55%)
|
12 (48%)
13 (52%)
|
23 (31%)
52 (69%)
|
History of domestic violence
Yes
No or Unknown
|
3 (10%)
27 (90%)
|
8 (40%)
12 (60%)
|
5 (20%)
20 (80%)
|
16 (21%)
59 (79%)
|
Expressed intent to obtain firearm
Yes
No or Unknown
|
4 (13%)
26 (87%)
|
2 (10%)
18 (90%)
|
2 (8%)
23 (92%)
|
8 (11%)
67 (89%)
|
Recently purchased firearm
Yes
No or Unknown
|
3 (10%)
27 (90%)
|
0 (0%)
20 (100%)
|
2 (8%)
23 (92%)
|
5 (7%)
70 (93%)
|
Number of risk factors identified through coding court files
Mean (SD)
Median (Range)
|
2.37 (1.16)
2 (1-6)
|
3.25 (0.91)
3 (2-5)
|
3.48 (0.96)
4 (1-5)
|
2.97 (1.14)
3 (1-6)
|
Court Decisions on ERPO Petitions
Courts issued temporary ERPOs for all 75 petitions. The three most frequent reasonable cause findings courts cited for granting temporary ERPOs in response to these petitions were violent threats and/or behaviors (n=62, 86%), a pattern of violence (n=34, 47%), and brandishing a firearm (n=32, 44%); 71 of the 75 (95%) cases had at least one of these findings (Table 3). In most cases (n=69, 92%), judges selected multiple findings. While these findings varied somewhat among those petitioners identified as “at risk of suicide only,” “risk to others only,” or “risk to both self and others,” violent threats and/or behaviors was the leading finding for all three categories (Table 3).
Of the 75 temporary orders issued, court records indicate that 14 respondents appeared at the hearing to contest the issuance of a one-year ERPO. In eight of these cases, the court denied the requested order (finding that the legal standard for the court to issue a one-year order was not met). The court dismissed an additional two cases: one after the respondent died in a motor vehicle crash and a second because the respondent was prohibited from possessing firearms through a felony conviction resulting from the same incident that initiated the ERPO petition. Courts granted ERPOs in the remaining four contested cases. Among the denied petitions, all eight had included a reasonable cause finding of violent threats or acts (directed at self and/or others) for the temporary ERPO and in five of the eight cases the court continued the temporary ERPO at least once (mean length of temporary ERPOs continued in these five cases = 129 days, range 28-407 days) so that it would remain in place during any delays surrounding the hearing date. This small number of cases resulting in denied and dismissed ERPOs precludes significance testing of comparisons with the cases for which courts granted ERPOs.
Table 3 – Courts’ reasonable cause findings for issued temporary ERPOs
Reasonable Cause for temporary ERPO2
|
Risk to Self only
N=29 (40%)
|
Risk to Others only
N=19 (27%)
|
Risk to Self and Others
N=24 (33%)
|
Total
N=721
|
a. Violence and threats
|
28 (97%)
|
15 (79%)
|
19 (79%)
|
62 (86%)
|
b. Pattern of violence
|
8 (28%)
|
13 (68%)
|
13 (54%)
|
34 (47%)
|
c. Brandished
|
11 (38%)
|
12 (63%)
|
9 (38%)
|
32 (44%)
|
d. Dangerous Mental
Health Issues3
|
10 (34%)
|
6 (32%)
|
13 (54%)
|
29 (40%)
|
e. Substance Use
|
8 (28%)
|
5 (26%)
|
6 (25%)
|
19 (26%)
|
f. Intent to obtain
|
7 (24%)
|
2 (11%)
|
6 (25%)
|
15 (21%)
|
g. Felony Crime
|
0 (0%)
|
6 (32%)
|
8 (33%)
|
14 (19%)
|
h. Force
|
1 (3%)
|
7 (37%)
|
6 (25%)
|
14 (19%)
|
i. DV Crime
|
0 (0%)
|
6 (32%)
|
7 (29%)
|
13 (18%)
|
j. Access
|
7 (24%)
|
2 (11%)
|
3 (13%)
|
12 (17%)
|
k. Recently Acquired
|
5 (17%)
|
2 (11%)
|
3 (13%)
|
10 (14%)
|
l. Violated PO
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (11%)
|
1 (4%)
|
3 (4%)
|
m. Stalking
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (16%)
|
0 (0%)
|
3 (4%)
|
n. Other
|
1 (3%)
|
3 (16%)
|
1 (4%)
|
5 (7%)
|
Petition Outcome
|
Risk to Self only
N=30 (40%)
|
Risk to Others only
N=20 (27%)
|
Risk to Self and Others
N=25 (33%)
|
Total
N=75
|
Temp ERPO Granted
Full ERPO Granted
Full ERPO Denied
Case Dismissed
|
30 (100%)
26 (87%)
4 (13%)
0 (0%)
|
20 (100%)
18 (90%)
2 (10%)
0 (0%)
|
25 (100%)
21 (84%)
2 (8%)
2 (8%)
|
75 (100%)
65 (86%)
8 (11%)
2 (3%)
|
1 In three cases (one each from risk to self, risk to others, and risk to self and others), the temporary ERPO was issued, but no reasonable cause was selected.
2 Reasonable causes for ERPO are:
a. Violence: Respondent has recently committed or threatened violence against self or others, whether or not respondent had a firearm.
b. Pattern: Respondent has shown, within the past 12 months, a pattern of acts or threats of violence, which can include violent acts against self or others.
c. Brandished: Respondent has unlawfully or recklessly used, displayed, or brandished a firearm.
d. Dangerous mental health issues: Behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others.
e. Substance use: There is corroborative evidence of the respondent’s abuse of alcohol or controlled substances.
f. Intent to obtain: Respondent expressed intent to obtain a firearm(s).
g. Felony crime: Respondent has been arrested for or convicted of a felony offence or violent crime.
h. Force: Respondent has a history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.
i. DV crime: Respondent has been arrested for or convicted of a domestic violence crime.
j. Access: Respondent has access to someone else’s firearms.
k. Recently acquired: Respondent recently acquired a firearm.
l. Violated PO: Respondent violated a civil or criminal protection order, no-contact order or restraining order. m. Stalking: Respondent has a history of stalking another person.
n. Other
3 In 2019, Washington amended its law to replace “dangerous mental health issues” with “behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others.”
Impacts of ERPO Petitions: Firearms Removed
Among the 75 cases, court records detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n=13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n=48, 64%). For 10 cases (13%) the descriptions of respondents’ dangerous behaviors that prompted the ERPO petitions did not include information about respondents possessing firearms. The records do note in seven of those 10 cases that respondents expressed their intention to obtain firearms, but in three cases respondents neither possessed nor expressed plans to obtain firearms. In these cases, court records include declarations from the respondents as documentation that the respondents did not have firearms to relinquish. The remaining four cases (5%) include information about respondents’ firearms, but there is no indication that the respondents were dispossessed of those firearms after the court issued ERPOs.