Florida Court Clarifies Misconceptions About Parkland Shooting 'Red Flag' Gun Law
The Fourth District Court of Appeal wrote to address some misunderstandings about this Florida gun control law.
May 01, 2020 at 01:16 PM
4 minute read
In a case that challenged the limits of a Florida "red flag" law allowing police to temporarily confiscate guns from potentially dangerous people, the Fourth District Court of Appeal wrote to clarify a "faulty assumption" about the law.
Florida Statute Section 790.401 was enacted after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, making it easier for authorities to stop anyone exhibiting violent and threatening behavior, or suffering a serious mental breakdown from getting hold of guns for up to 12 months via a risk-protection order.
Although the statute says that at risk-protection order hearings, "the rules of evidence apply to the same extent as in a domestic violence injunction proceeding under s. 741.30." § 790.401(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2018)," the Fourth DCA stressed that doesn't mean the domestic violence rules of evidence apply, or that petitioners have to demonstrate "imminent fear" or "immediate and present" danger at those hearings.
Instead, the appellate panel said that simply means the Florida Evidence Code applies in the same way it would with a domestic violence hearing.
"Also, nothing in the RPO statute requires a showing of 'immediate and present danger' or 'imminent fear,' " the opinion said. " Rather, the statute explicitly states it requires a showing that the respondent poses a 'significant danger.' "
The opinion centers around retired military veteran Christopher Blinston, who appealed after the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office petitioned to enforce a 12-month risk protection order against him in February 2019.
Blinston argued the statute limited evidence to events within 12 months of the petition being filed. But the Fourth DCA disagreed, finding " any relevant evidence" could come in — with only a few exceptions outlined in the statute.
The law has been widely used, albeit inconsistently across Florida, with more than 3,500 risk protection orders issued since Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people and injured 17 others in the Parkland massacre.
|
Related story: Florida 'Red Flag' Gun Law Used 3,500 Times Since Parkland
In Blinston's case, Palm Beach Circuit Judge Dina A. Keever-Agrama found clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger after hearing about his prior arrests and history of domestic violence and child abuse.
Multiple witnesses described him as violent and threatening, and said he often built silencers and put scopes on his rifles late into the night, according to the opinion, which found Keever-Agrama was right to grant the petition.
Blinston also claimed his active domestic violence injunction barred the risk protection order, since it already blocked him from accessing guns. But the appellate panel found the exact opposite was true.
"The RPO statute not only requires the disclosure of an existing protection order but explicitly allows the trial court to consider compliance with the existing protection order in granting the RPO," the opinion said. "If the legislature intended for the existence of an active domestic violence injunction to preclude entry of an RPO, it would not have included express language in the statute permitting consideration of an existing protection order."
|Poorly written statute?
The sheriff's attorneys Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel of Link & Rockenbach in West Palm Beach said the law enforcement official was pleased with the ruling.
"Protecting our community is the sheriff's top priority," Rockenbach said. "Being able to enforce this potentially life-saving legislation is mission critical."
Blinston's lawyer Cory C. Strolla of Strolla Law in West Palm Beach, on the other hand, was "extremely disappointed."
"Based on the fact that these risk protection orders [aka red flag law] were created under the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act, the legislative history clearly indicates that this was specifically created for imminent mental health crisis situations," Strolla said. "The appellate court relied on the plain language of a poorly written statute and not on the actual intent of said statute's creation."
Fourth DCA Judge Dorian Damoorgian wrote the ruling, with Judges Martha Warner and Jeffrey Kuntz concurring.
|Read the opinion:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Trending Stories
- 1Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 2Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
- 3Spencer Lawton, Savannah Prosecutor Who Tried ‘Midnight in the Garden’ Case, Dies at 81
- 4Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
- 5Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250