Topic:
FIREARMS; GUN CONTROL; LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; SEARCH AND SEIZURE; STATISTICAL INFORMATION; WARRANTS; WEAPONS;
Location:
WEAPONS - FIREARMS;

OLR Research Report


June 25, 2008

 

2008-R-0280

GUN SEIZURE LAW

By: Veronica Rose, Principal Analyst

Meghan Reilly, Legislative Fellow

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)

Year

No. of Applications

1999 (Oct. –Dec. )

14

2000

21

2001

22

2002

21

2003

16

2004

26

2005

34

2006

20

2007

31

2008 (Jan. -May)

17

Total

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)

Police Department

No. of Applications

Police Department

No. of Applications

Avon

2

New Haven

1

Berlin

3

New Milford

1

Bloomfield

2

Newington

10

Bristol

15

North Branford

1

Brookfield

2

North Haven

3

Cheshire

1

Norwich

1

Clinton

1

Old Saybrook

1

Danbury

5

Plainville

2

Darien

1

Plymouth

1

East Hartford

4

Rocky Hill

3

East Haven

11

Seymour

3

East Windsor

1

Simsbury

1

Enfield

5

South Windsor

1

Fairfield

1

Southington

9

Farmington

7

Stamford

1

Glastonbury

2

State Police

32

Greenwich

1

Torrington

4

Guilford

1

Trumbull

1

Hamden

5

UConn Police Department

1

Manchester

6

Vernon

4

Meriden

3

Wallingford

2

Middlebury

2

Waterbury

3

Milford

8

West Hartford

23

Monroe

4

West Haven

3

Naugatuck

2

Windsor

2

New Britain

9

Windsor Locks

2

New Canaan

1

Wolcott

1

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)

Reason

No. of Warrant Requests

% of Total Warrant Requests

Suicide threat/behavior

91

40

Murder

30

14

Murder/suicide threat

19

9

Mental Issues

27

12

Violent threat

27

12

Reckless gun use/display

8

4

Other

16

7

Unknown

4

2

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

Source of Allegation

No. of Allegations

Source known

187

Spouse/partner

59

Relative other than spouse

28

Police

26

Health professional

19

Self

11

Workplace

8

Other (friends, neighbors, etc. )

36

Unknown/unclear

35

Total

222

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)

Police Department

No. of Guns Seized

Police Department

No. of Guns Seized

Avon

7

New Haven

1

Berlin

22

New Milford

4

Bloomfield

5

Newington

52

Bristol

50

North Branford

5

Brookfield

48

North Haven

17

Cheshire

4

Norwich

2

Clinton

7

Old Saybrook

1

Danbury

28

Plainville

42

Darien

0

Plymouth

2

East Hartford

10

Rocky Hill

29

East Haven

57

Seymour

18

East Windsor

24

Simsbury

1

Enfield

37

South Windsor

12

Fairfield

8

Southington

72

Farmington

51

Stamford

1

Glastonbury

38

State Police

455

Greenwich

11

Torrington

63

Guilford

1

Trumbull

6

Hamden

12

UConn Police Department

0

Manchester

24

Vernon

5

Meriden

41

Wallingford

8

Middlebury

50

Waterbury

31

Milford

84

West Hartford

109

Monroe

39

West Haven

15

Naugatuck

34

Windsor

8

New Britain

35

Windsor Locks

21

New Canaan

2

Wolcott

0

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)

Disposition

Number

Hold guns

76

Transfer to third party

18

Destroy guns

17

Sell

9

Return guns

22

Other

7

Unclear/unknown

53

No order

6

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:

[T]he state has failed to offer sufficient evidence that the defendant harbors a propensity to cause harm by firearm misuse—let alone a propensity toward “imminent” personal injury. . . . The defendant's normal course of action, when he felt threatened, was always to call the police. He has no criminal record or record of reckless firearm use or misuse. He possessed a permit for the guns. In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant. Although the statue raises arguably significant concerns concerning the defendant's mental health and possible paranoia, no medical testimony has been offered to support this assertion. As such, the evidence is not clear and convincing in the sense required by the statute (In Re: James Nardelli, Docket No: CV 18 10848, Superior Court G. A. # 18 at Bantam (Jan. 30, 2007)).

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.

ATTACHMENT 1: GUN SEIZURE WARRANT APPLICATIONS, 1999-MAY 31, 2008

Police Department Requesting Warrant

No. of Requests for Warrants

Subject of Complaint or Warrant (Person Posing Imminent Risk/ Defendant)

Person Initiating Complaint (Complainant)

Reason for Requesting Warrant (i. e. , allegations Against Defendant)

Potential Victim/Person Targeted or Likely to Be Harmed by Defendant

Criminal or Psychiatric History of Person Posing Risk

Was Warrant Issued?

Issue Date*

Were Guns Seized?

If yes, how many?*

Case Disposition**

Avon

2

Case No. 1/72—Walter M. (m)

Friend (social relationship)

Suicide threats (possible depression)

Self

Unknown

Yes
Dec
. 15, 2002

Yes (6, plus ammunition)
Dec
. 15, 2002

No order made (defendant's mother, who owned the guns, asked the police to hold them for a year or until a buyer was found; police transferred them to gun dealer on Oct. 29, 2003)—case closed

   

Case No. 2/208—E. S. (f)

Police investigation

Suicide threat (while getting medical treatment, the 87-year old subject stated, in police presence, that her spouse and child had died and the pain in her leg was so bad she wanted to use her gun and kill herself)

Self

Unknown

Yes
Aug
. 1, 2007

Yes (1)
July 28, 2000

Unknown (hearing set for Aug. 15, 2007; no further information available)—file closed

Berlin

3

Case No. 1/76—Michael F. (m)

Landlord (other)

Suicide/murder threats (“I am going to kill myself and take a few people with me”)

Self and nonspecific

Arrests for motor vehicle and weapon violations

Mental health history: unknown

Yes
March 15, 2004

Yes (18, plus ammunition and other weapons) March 11 and 12, 2004

Hold (court ordered guns held for one year; guns returned on March 25, 2006)—case closed

   

Case No. 2/186—Timothy Y. (m)

Case worker (health professional)

Suicidal thoughts

Self

Undergoing emergency committal at time of incident

Criminal record: unknown

Yes

Nov. 29, 2006

Yes (1, plus knife and ammunition) Nov. 23, 2006

Unknown (hearing set for July 5, 2007; court disposition unknown; as of April 30, 2008, police still holding gun)—file closed

   

Case No. 3/207—G. I. (m)

Wife (spouse)

Suicide attempt

Self

Subject twice committed for suicidal comments and actions; police and EMS responded eight times to his house for suicide related incidents

Criminal record: unknown

Yes
July 3, 2007

Yes (3)
July 26, 2007

Hold (hearing on Aug. 21, 2007; court ordered guns held for one year; guns destroyed because they were not claimed)—case closed

Bloomfield

2

Case No. 1/78 Beatrice H. (f)

Doctor (health professional)

Mental instability (claimed to see people coming through her walls to harm her and her dogs)

Nonspecific

No known criminal history

History of paranoia; unresponsive to doctor's advice to get psychiatric treatment

Yes
March 22, 2004

Yes (1)
March 22, 2004)

Destroy (court ordered gun destroyed; gun destroyed)—case closed

 

 

Case No. 2/145— Carol G. (f)

Husband (spouse)

Suicide threat (left suicide note)

Self

Unknown

Yes
Aug
. 26, 2005

Yes (4, plus ammunition and accessories) Aug. 26, 2005

Hold (hearing set for Sep. 6, 2005; court ordered guns held for 6 months; as of Jan. 26, 2006, police still holding guns)—file closed

Bristol

15

Case No. 1/77—Daniel W. (m)

Estranged wife (spouse)

Suicide threat (defendant said he wanted “to put a bullet through his head)

Self

History of depression

Criminal history record: unknown

Yes
Jan
. 8, 2004

Yes (4, plus ammunition and accessories) Jan. 8, 2004

Unknown (hearing on Jan. 22, 2004; police still holding guns on May 1, 2008)—file closed

 

 

Case No. 2/80—James S. (m)

Police Investigation

Suicidal behavior

Self

Unknown

Yes
March 25, 2004

Yes (4, plus ammunition) March 19, 2004

Unclear (hearing set for April 7, 2004; guns returned on Feb. 25, 2005)—case closed

 

 

Case No. 3/105—Stanley S. (m)

Wife (spouse)

Suicide threat (depressed about employment status)

Self

Unknown

Yes
May 13, 2004

Yes (7, plus ammunition) May 7, 2004

Transfer to third party (court ordered guns transferred to third party; guns transferred in 2005)—case closed

 

 

Case No. 4/108—Michael L. (m)

Father (relative)

Suicide attempts and murder threat

Self and neighbor

Institutionalized for depression and suicide attempts

Criminal history record: unknown

Yes
May 7, 2004

Yes (1) April 18, 2004

Unknown (hearing set for May 20, 2004; initial court order not known; but guns turned over to CSP for destruction in 2006 under court order)—case closed

 

 

Case No. 5/111—Henry P. (m)

Wife (spouse)

 Murder threat

Wife and other relatives

Unknown

Yes

Aug. 20, 2004

Yes (1, plus ammunition)

Aug. 20, 2004

Unknown (hearing set for Sep. 1, 2004; initial court order not known; but guns turned over to CSP for destruction in 2006 under court order)—case closed

 

 

Case No. 6/136— Mary L. (f)

Father (relative)

Suicide attempt (took valium; wrote letter saying her life was not worth living and her relatives would be at peace when she died)

Self

Unknown

Yes
date unknown

Yes (1, plus ammunition and firearm ID cards) Sep. 18, 2004

Return (hearing scheduled for Sep. 30, 2004; court ordered guns returned to owner)case closed

 

 

Case No. 7/140—Mark S. (m)

Brother (relative)

Suicide threats

Self

Unknown

Yes

Aug. 2, 2005

Yes (1)
July 26, 2005

Hold (2005; court ordered gun held for one year; no further information available)—file closed

 

 

Case No. 8/151—Daniel M. (m)

Wife (spouse)

Suicide threat (distraught over wife's “affair” )

Self

Unknown

Yes
Nov
. 2, 2005

Yes (11)
Oct
. 23, 2005

Return—hearing scheduled for Nov. 16, 2005; at hearing, guns returned to ownercase closed