You asked for an update of OLR Report 2006-R-0330 on the state's gun seizure law. This report covers the period October 1, 1999 through May 31, 2008.

SUMMARY

State law allows police, after investigating and determining probable cause, to get a court warrant and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else. A judge must hold a hearing within 14 days after the seizure and order the police to hold the guns for up to one year or return them. The judge (1) when assessing probable cause, must consider recent acts of threatening, animal cruelty, or violence and (2) when assessing imminent risk, may consider such factors as reckless gun use or display, violent threats, alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, and prior involuntary confinement in a psychiatric facility.

Since October 1, 1999, when the law took effect, police have applied for at least 222 warrants and seized at least 1,713 guns. Fifty-three local police departments and the State Police reported applying for warrants, with the State Police (32) and West Hartford (23) ranked one and two for number of applications. Other departments rounding out the top five are Bristol (15), East Haven (11), and Newington (10). The courts denied only two warrants (one for lack of probable cause and another on grounds that the police had already seized all the defendant's guns under a previous warrant). The courts upheld the gun seizures in the vast majority of the cases.

The data also show:

1. suicide and murder threats as the most common actions, and a spouse or other domestic partner as the most common source of complaints, triggering warrant applications;

2. females (typically a wife or girlfriend) as more likely than males to be potential targets or victims of the people posing a risk; and

3. the person posing the risk of harm was more likely to be a male than female (204 men and 18 women); and

4. police found guns in 95% of the cases in which they conducted a search.

In many cases, information on some variables is not available.

BACKGROUND

Gun Seizure Law

The law allows any two police officers (or a state's attorney), under limited circumstances, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone who poses an imminent risk of injuring himself or herself or someone else. The officials may seek the warrant only after (1) conducting an independent investigation to establish probable cause and (2) determining that no reasonable alternative exists to avert the risk of harm.

The law does not define “independent investigation” or prescribe “reasonable alternatives. ” But the floor debate on the bill that became law suggests that legislators believed that (1) as part of the investigation, police should talk to witnesses and corroborate allegations made against defendants, and (2) civil commitment and arrest were reasonable alternatives to a search warrant. A Superior Court ruling that reversed a seizure under this law identified consensual search as the most obvious alternative to seizure (State of Connecticut v. David Avery, No. CV11-9168A, 1999 WL 1207153 (Conn. Super. Nov. 30, 1999)).

In determining grounds and probable cause for issuing a warrant, the judge must consider any recent threat or violent act the person directed at himself or herself, others, or animals. In determining whether the threats or acts constitute probable cause to believe a risk of injury is imminent, the judge may consider, among other things, if the person (1) recklessly used, displayed, or brandished a gun; (2) has a history of using, attempting, or threatening to use physical force against people; (3) was ever involuntarily confined to a psychiatric hospital; (4) abused alcohol; or (5) illegally used controlled substances. If satisfied that probable cause exists and there is no reasonable alternative to prevent the person from causing imminent harm, the judge must issue the warrant (CGS § 29-38c).

The court must hold a hearing within 14 days after the seizure to determine whether to return the guns or order them held for up to one year.

Scope

The report discusses:

1. the number of warrants requested, issued, and denied;

2. the person posing risk of harm (i. e. , the defendant or subject of the warrant);

3. the kinds of allegations triggering warrant applications and the people who made them (i. e. , (a) the facts or allegations on which police based their determination that a person posed an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else and (b) the source of the allegations);

4. the potential target or victim of the person posing a risk (including the relationship between the potential victim or target and person posing risk);

5. number of guns seized; and

6. case disposition.

Methodology

In August 2000, OLR surveyed local police departments and the State Police for data on the gun seizure law (see OLR Report 2000-R-0789. ). Since 2001, we have been updating this baseline information with data from gun seizure warrants, affidavits, and case reports voluntarily provided to the Judicial Department. When necessary, we contacted departments to fill data gaps and verify information. We categorized and summarized the data as shown on Appendix 1.

Limitations

There is no mandate for departments to compile or report gun seizure data. Typically, they maintain the data in files reflecting the case that triggered the warrant application (e. g. , threatening or domestic dispute) rather than in separate, readily retrievable files. In some instances, responses were based on officers' recollections. Also, several large departments, including Bridgeport and Hartford, have not provided any data. Others have provided what may be limited data. These include Greenwich, New Haven, and Stamford. Each reported one case. These limitations may have led to underreporting.

WARRANT APPLICATIONS

As of May 31, 2008, at least 54 police departments, including the State Police, had applied for gun seizure warrants under CGS § 29-38c. They applied for 222 warrants, broken down by year as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of Gun Seizure Warrant Applications, by Year (N=222)

The number of applications ranged from one to 32. The State Police applied for the most warrants (32), followed by West Hartford (23), Bristol (15), East Haven (11), and Newington (10). These five departments applied for almost 40% (91) of all the warrants (see Table 2). Twenty departments applied for only one warrant.

Table 2: Warrant Applications — Oct. 1, 1999 through May 31, 2008 (N=222)

Number of Police Departments = 54

REASON FOR REQUESTING WARRANTS

In 140 (63%) of the 222 cases, warrant applications were based on a suicide or murder allegation, or both. Suicide threats accounted for 91 (40%) applications, murder threats for 30 (14%), and murder-suicide threats for 19 (9%) (see Table 3).

Table 3: Reason for Requesting Warrants (N=222)

Other factors that triggered applications included violent threats (many in domestic abuse situations), mental instability, and reckless gun use or display.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the variables.

SOURCE OF ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN WARRANTS

The data show a spouse or partner as the most likely person to initiate a complaint triggering a warrant application (see Table 4). (For purposes of this report a partner is a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend. ) A spouse or partner was the source in 59 (32%) of the 187 cases in which we were able to identify the complainant. A relative other than a spouse ranked second (28 cases (15%)); and law enforcement officials (including correction officers) ranked third (26 cases (14%)). Health professionals ranked fourth (19 cases (10%)).

Table 4: Source of Allegations in Gun Seizure Warrants

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the variables.

POTENTIAL VICTIM OR PERSON LIKELY TO BE HARMED BY DEFENDANT

In 113 (51%) of the 222 cases, the defendant was the potential victim (91 potential suicide and three mental instability cases) or one of the potential victims (19 murder/suicide cases). In the three mental instability cases the context made it clear that the defendant was the person likely to be harmed. (Because suicide/murder cases are counted for both suicide and murder, the cases do not add up to 222. )

In 41 of the 222 cases, there was no clearly identifiable target either because the defendant made no threat (18) or made general nonspecific statements to harm someone (23). Most mental disability cases are placed in one of these classes. Another 11 cases did not include sufficient data to allow us to make a determination.

Seventy-eight cases involved a potential target or victim other than the defendant. The person most frequently targeted was a spouse or partner (33 cases), usually a female. Other targets included neighbors, relatives other than spouses, and coworkers.

In one case, the potential target was a dog (Southington, Case 8/194). For a more detailed look at potential targets or victims, see Appendix 1.

NUMBER OF WARRANTS ISSUED

The courts issued 219 of the 222 warrants police requested. They denied one West Hartford warrant and one Wolcott warrant. The target of a third warrant voluntarily surrendered his guns before the warrant was signed.

The West Hartford case involved an individual from whom the police had seized guns under a previous gun seizure warrant. The court denied the second warrant involving the same individual on the grounds that the previous search had yielded all the guns to which the individual had access.

The Wolcott case involved an individual who (1) had been previously hospitalized and placed on medication for suicidal tendencies, (2) told a friend he was thinking of killing himself, (3) had a gun permit, and (4) lied about getting professional help for his problems. The court denied the warrant for lack of probable cause.

SEARCH OUTCOME

Police seized guns in 208 (95%) of the 219 cases in which they got warrants. In 11 cases, they found no guns. In all, they seized at least 1,713 guns. The State Police seized the most, more than 455, including 231 in one case (see Table 5).

Table 5: Number of Guns Seized, by Police Departments — Oct. 1, 1999 through May 31, 2008 (N=1,713)

CASE DISPOSITION

The 208 cases in which the police seized guns include (1) six in which the courts did not make an order because the cases were resolved before the hearing (e. g. , the defendant agreed to let police hold or destroy the guns) and (2) 53 cases for which the departments either did not have any case disposition data or the disposition was unclear. A surprisingly large number of police officers with whom we discussed this latter issue indicated that they do not get disposition data from the courts.

The courts upheld the gun seizures in 120 (81%) of the remaining 149 cases (Table 6) by ordering the police to do the following with the guns: hold (76 cases), transfer to a third party (18 cases), destroy (17 cases), or sell (nine cases).

Table 6: Gun Seizure Case Disposition (N=208)

The court ordered the police to return the guns in 22 (15%) of the 149 cases. In one of the earliest overturned cases, the court said the State Police had not exhausted the law's reasonable alternative standards. In another case, it overturned a Rocky Hill police case on the grounds of insufficient evidence. It reversed a more recent Torrington (2006/2007) police case on grounds that the department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or others. According to the court:

In seven cases, the courts' decisions comprised two parts. For example, they ordered (1) some weapons destroyed and others returned to the defendant or (2) some weapons turned over to a third party and others destroyed.

Figure 3 shows the relationship between the variables.

CRIMINAL HISTORY, MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, AND GUN SEIZURE

Typically, the criminal health and mental health history information we gathered from the gun seizure reports (warrants or case summary) was fragmented and limited. In more than half of the cases, we received no data on these issues. And in some cases, it was not possible to verify what was reported. Consequently, even though we have included the information in Appendix 1, we have not analyzed it in the report.