Cargando…

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and posses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frattaroli, Shannon, Omaki, Elise, Molocznik, Amy, Allchin, Adelyn, Hopkins, Renee, Shanahan, Sandra, Levinson, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7374900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32693831
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00270-1
_version_ 1783561780649263104
author Frattaroli, Shannon
Omaki, Elise
Molocznik, Amy
Allchin, Adelyn
Hopkins, Renee
Shanahan, Sandra
Levinson, Anne
author_facet Frattaroli, Shannon
Omaki, Elise
Molocznik, Amy
Allchin, Adelyn
Hopkins, Renee
Shanahan, Sandra
Levinson, Anne
author_sort Frattaroli, Shannon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State’s ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention. METHODS: We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data. RESULTS: Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. 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%). Five cases where the threat was to “others only” met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts’ reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases 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%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Washington’s ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7374900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73749002020-07-22 Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response Frattaroli, Shannon Omaki, Elise Molocznik, Amy Allchin, Adelyn Hopkins, Renee Shanahan, Sandra Levinson, Anne Inj Epidemiol Original Contribution BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State’s ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention. METHODS: We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data. RESULTS: Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. 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%). Five cases where the threat was to “others only” met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts’ reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases 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%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Washington’s ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases. BioMed Central 2020-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7374900/ /pubmed/32693831 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00270-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Original Contribution
Frattaroli, Shannon
Omaki, Elise
Molocznik, Amy
Allchin, Adelyn
Hopkins, Renee
Shanahan, Sandra
Levinson, Anne
Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title_full Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title_fullStr Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title_full_unstemmed Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title_short Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
title_sort extreme risk protection orders in king county, washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response
topic Original Contribution
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7374900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32693831
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00270-1
work_keys_str_mv AT frattarolishannon extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT omakielise extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT molocznikamy extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT allchinadelyn extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT hopkinsrenee extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT shanahansandra extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse
AT levinsonanne extremeriskprotectionordersinkingcountywashingtontheepidemiologyofdangerousbehaviorsandaninterventionresponse