Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) Published online 31 March 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2175
Circumstances and Outcomes of a Firearm Seizure Law: Marion County, Indiana, 2006–2013 George F. Parker, M.D.* Indiana statute allows police to seize firearms without a warrant if the officer believes a person meets the law’s definition of “dangerous.” Review of the use of this law in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana, showed that prosecutors filed petitions in court to retain weapons seized by police under this law 404 times between 2006 and 2013. Police removed weapons from people due to identification of a risk of suicide (68%) or violence (21%), or the presence of psychosis (16%). The firearm seizures occurred in the context of domestic disputes in 28% of cases and intoxication was noted in 26% of cases. There were significant demographic differences in the circumstances of firearm seizures and the firearms seized. The seized firearms were retained by the court at the initial hearing in 63% of cases; this retention was closely linked to the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court dismissed 29% of cases at the initial hearing, closely linked to the defendant’s presence at the hearing. In subsequent hearings of cases not dismissed, the court ordered the destruction of the firearms in 72% of cases, all when the individual did not appear in court, and dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing. Overall, the Indiana law removed weapons from a small number of people, most of whom did not seek return of their weapons. The firearm seizure law thus functioned as a months-long cooling-off period for those who did seek the return of their guns. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In the past 4 years, there have been several high-profile multiple homicides in the United States, including mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona (2011), Aurora, Colorado (2012), Newtown, Connecticut (2012), the Washington Navy Yard (2013) and Santa Barbara, California (2014). In each of these tragedies, the shooter was known or presumed to have a serious mental illness, and after each of these mass shootings, a public discussion quickly arose about how to prevent people who have a mental illness from owning or gaining access to firearms. The United States has a long history of protecting an individual’s right to own firearms, based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The United States also has a long history of trying to prevent people with mental illness from legally owning firearms (Simpson, 2007), beginning in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited “mentally incompetent” or “mental defective” individuals from owning guns. Since 1993, enforcement of these provisions has relied on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by the Brady *Correspondence to: George F. Parker, M.D., Director of Forensic Psychiatry, IU Health Neuroscience th Center, 355 West 16 St., Suite 2800, Indianapolis, IN 46202, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
309
Handgun Violence Prevention Act, but for years relatively few states consistently provided data on persons prohibited from owning a gun due to mental illness, as became apparent after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. In addition to federal legislation, the individual states also passed laws restricting people with mental illness from owning firearms. Despite this legal framework, the shooters in each of the mass shootings listed here either purchased the guns used in the shootings legally or had access to weapons that had been legally purchased by a family member. A fact often overlooked in the storm of argument that arises after a mass shooting is that such occurrences are rare. Mass shootings represent only a very small fraction of the thousands of gun deaths, the majority of which are suicides, which occur every year in the United States. Even if a means could be devised to prevent all mass shootings, the overall impact on the total number of gun deaths would be small. However, highprofile shootings have prompted legislative reactions that may prove to have an impact on gun violence in general. The most well-known example of this is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which came after John Hinckley shot and critically wounded both President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, James Brady, in 1981. Examples of this phenomenon at the state level can be found in Connecticut in 1998, in Indiana in 2006, in New York in 2013, and in California in 2014, where high-profile shootings prompted state legislatures to pass laws that allowed police to seize legally owned weapons from individuals if they believed there was a risk of suicide or violence. These laws essentially allow preemptive confiscation of weapons based on the presumption that doing so may prevent gun violence. Study of the use of these laws over time may contribute something often lacking in the debate over the interaction between mental illness and gun violence: data. In 2005, after one Indianapolis police officer was killed and four officers were wounded by a man with paranoid schizophrenia wielding an assault rifle, Indiana became the second state to enact a law allowing police to seize firearms from people believed to be mentally ill and dangerous. The Indianapolis shooter had previously had his weapons and ammunition confiscated by police after they found him to be acutely psychotic and involuntarily transported him to a local hospital. Because he was not civilly committed by the hospital, when the shooter later asked for the return of his firearms, the police had no legal grounds to refuse his request, despite their strong reservations about doing so. The Indiana legislature thus focused on crafting a law that would prevent a recurrence of this scenario. Indiana Code 35-47-14 begins by defining “dangerous” in a two-step process. First, a person must present either “an imminent risk of personal injury” to self or others, or “a risk of personal injury… in the future,” also to self or others. Secondly, the person must either have “a mental illness,” as defined in the Indiana civil commitment statute, for which the individual has not been taking medication to control the illness, or the person must show “evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.” A police officer who believes a person meets this definition of dangerous may request a warrant to search for and seize a firearm or may effect a warrantless seizure, followed by submission of a written statement to the court describing why the officer believed the person was dangerous. The court must then conduct an initial hearing to determine if the weapon is to be returned to the individual or retained by law enforcement. The state has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person was dangerous at the time of the firearm seizure. If the court retains a person’s firearm, the individual Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
310
G. F. Parker
may petition for its return 180 days after each court hearing. If the court retains a firearm and receives no request for its return over a period of 5 years, it may order the destruction of the firearm after a final hearing. Indiana’s law differs in important ways from the laws in California, Connecticut, New York, and Texas, the four other states that have laws that permit police to seize firearms from people considered to be dangerous or mentally ill. Connecticut’s firearm seizure law (Connecticut General Statutes 29-38c) was passed in 1998, as Public Law 99–212, after a multiple homicide by a man who had a history of depression and attempted suicide. Under this law, Connecticut police must request a warrant before seizing weapons from a person who is believed to present “a risk of imminent personal injury” to self or others. Connecticut police must conduct an “independent investigation” before requesting the warrant and the judge must consider several factors before granting the warrant. If the warrant is granted, the court must conduct a subsequent hearing within 2 weeks to decide whether to return the guns or to hold them for up to 1 year. The Connecticut statute’s requirement that police obtain a warrant before seizing a firearm from an individual is thus more stringent than Indiana firearm seizure law, which allows warrantless seizure. New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (SAFE Act) in response to the shootings at Newtown. One of its several provisions amended New York’s Mental Hygiene Law by adding a section (9.46) that requires mental health professionals to report any person believed to be dangerous to self or others to a county mental health official. If the official agrees with the determination of dangerousness, the report is forwarded to the state department of criminal justice services, which must then determine if the reported person has a firearms license. If the person does have a firearms license, the licensing authority is notified, the license must be suspended or revoked and the firearms must be surrendered, with the assistance of police if necessary. The New York law relies on mental health professionals to make a determination of dangerousness, in contrast to the Indiana law, which asks police officers to make that decision. The Texas Legislature added Article 18.191 to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in 2013. This law codifies the procedures to be followed if a police officer seizes a firearm in the process of detaining and transporting a person for evaluation regarding the civil commitment of that individual. Police in Texas must follow up on such a seizure by asking the court if the person was court-ordered to receive in-patient mental health treatment. If the person was so ordered, as a result of being civilly committed, police must inform the person that, under federal statute, they may no longer own, possess, or purchase a firearm. The person may transfer the firearm to a lawful designee or permit police to dispose of the weapon. In the latter case, or if police receive no response from the person, police may sell the weapon, but are not permitted to destroy it. The Texas law thus allows police to seize firearms in the context of involuntary transportation for mental health evaluation and treatment, but it allows retention of the firearms only if the individual is subsequently civilly committed. Both of these elements represent important procedural differences from the Indiana firearm seizure law. The governor of California signed AB104, also known as the Gun Violence Restraining Order law, in October 2014, with an effective date of January 1, 2015. This law allows family members to seek a restraining order from a judge in order to remove firearms from a relative whom they believe is dangerous. The legislation arose in the aftermath of the Santa Barbara mass shooting, as it was learned that police had Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
311
interviewed the shooter outside his apartment after his family and therapist asked them to do so. Had the police searched the apartment, it is likely they would have found the weapons used in the shootings. Research on the use of state firearm seizure laws has been limited. The use of the Indiana firearm seizure law was the subject of one prior study (Parker, 2010), which examined the circumstances of police seizures of firearms in Marion County, and the court outcomes after such seizures, in 2006 and 2007. In a majority of the 133 cases studied, the law was used by police to seize weapons from people who were suicidal; other causes for gun seizure included a risk of violence, a domestic disturbance, and psychosis. A large majority of the individuals whose guns were seized were involuntarily transported to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation at the time of the incident. Court hearings held in 2006 resulted in retention of the firearms seized in 95% of the cases, 53% by court order and 42% by agreement of the individual; no instances of failure to appear were noted in the 2010 article. In 2007, the results in court showed a different pattern, as the court ordered retention of weapons in only 8% of cases and individuals agreed to retention in 14% of cases, while firearms were returned to the owner in 12% of cases; however, in 68% of cases, the court retained the weapons due to the failure of the defendant to appear in court. There have been two research studies on the Connecticut firearm seizure law. In a 2008 report for the Connecticut Legislature, Rose and Reilly (2008) found that the law had been used about 20 times per year between 1999 and 2008. There had been 222 requests for warrants, 219 of which were granted; two requests had been denied by the court and one individual surrendered his weapons voluntarily. A risk of suicide was the most frequent reason for requesting a warrant to seize firearms (n = 91, 40%), followed by risk of homicide (n = 30, 14%), threat of violence (n = 27, 12%), and threat of murder and suicide (n = 19, 9%). Police seized weapons in 95% of the cases (n = 208) when a warrant was issued and had confiscated a total of 1,713 weapons; in 5% of cases (n = 11), they found no weapons. Information on the outcome of the court proceedings after the weapons were seized was available in 72% of the cases (n = 149). The courts upheld the seizure in 81% (n = 120) of these cases and ordered the guns held (n = 76, 63%), transferred (n = 18, 15%), destroyed (n = 17, 14%), sold (n = 9, 8%), or returned to the individual (n = 22, 15%). Norko and Baranoski (2014) wrote that Connecticut had used its firearm seizure law 764 times between October 1999 and July 2013; 53% of the warrants had been issued after 2010. The average age of the people who were issued warrants was 47.4 years, and 91.5% (n = 700) of the warrants were issued to men. The warrants were issued based on a risk of self-harm in 51% (n = 357) of the cases involving men and 83% (n = 53) of the cases involving women; a risk of violence was the reason for 24% (n = 168) of the warrants for men and 15% (n = 10) of the warrants for women. Police noted evidence of alcohol use in about 30% of the cases, drug use in less than 5%, and use of prescribed pain medication in 10%. Conflict with a significant other and depression were the two most common circumstances associated with the issuance of a warrant to seize firearms. Most people served with such a warrant were then evaluated in an emergency room (60% of men and 80% of women); 20% were arrested and 16% were both arrested and evaluated in an emergency room. The outcome of the subsequent court hearings was known for less than 30% of the cases. In these cases, the firearms were retained 68% of the time, and the remaining weapons were destroyed (30 cases), returned (20 cases), or transferred to a family member (15 cases). Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
312
G. F. Parker
Much less information is available on the use of the New York and Texas laws, and the California law has only just gone into effect. No research has been published on the use of these state laws in the academic literature, based on searches of PsycINFO and PubMed. A Google search yielded only an October 2013 article in the Houston Chronicle (Freedman, 2013), which noted that the Houston Police Department, which had advocated for the new law, had seized firearms in the context of a civil commitment 47 times in 2012 and 48 times through October of 2013. This article will extend the previous study on the use of Indiana’s firearm seizure law in Marion County to the period of 2006–2013. Marion County is contiguous with the city of Indianapolis and is the most populous county in Indiana – the 2010 population, according to the United States Census, was 903,393. Since Indiana’s firearm seizure law was passed in response to the death of an Indianapolis police officer, Indianapolis police began to use the law shortly after its passage and have used it consistently since then. Although there is no statewide database on the use of this law, to the author’s knowledge, the law has been used only sporadically in other Indiana counties. This article will describe the circumstances and outcomes of 404 court proceedings in Marion County, Indiana, between 2006 and 2013 related to police seizure of firearms under Indiana Code 35-47-14.
METHODS All firearm seizure cases in Marion County are heard in one court, a minor felony and misdemeanor criminal court. The firearm seizure cases are heard in a designated time slot and the court files are kept together, separate from other criminal cases. The public records for each of the firearm seizure cases heard during the years 2006–2013 were reviewed. These consisted of the probable cause affidavit, which included the police report of the incident that led to the firearm seizure, as well as subsequent court filings regarding the proceedings and the chronological record of the court’s actions. Any mental health records that were part of the court file were protected as confidential by Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G) and were not reviewed. The police report was used to determine the circumstances of the seizure, using one or more of the following broad categories: risk of suicide, risk of violence, or active psychosis. The presence of a risk of suicide was based on the individual threatening or attempting suicide. A risk of violence was based on the individual threatening to kill, shoot, or hurt others or having already hurt others. The presence of psychosis was based on a report of paranoia, hallucinations or disorganized thinking in the absence of intoxication. Domestic disturbance was defined for the purposes of this study as an argument or fight between family members or people in a relationship or if the incident took place in the context of the end of a relationship. Intoxication with alcohol or drugs was noted if it was documented in the police report. After each incident was reviewed for the presence of these five categories, the individual circumstances of each incident were reviewed and sorted into groups based on the subgroups in each category. Incidents with a risk of suicide were split into verbal threat of suicide, holding a gun or knife to self, suicide attempt by gunshot, and other suicide attempts. Incidents with a risk of violence were broken into those who had threatened to kill another person, shoot someone, or harm someone, or who had pointed a gun at someone else. Domestic disturbances were separated into arguments with significant others Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
313
(spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend), arguments with others, threats to family without an argument, and the end of a relationship. The 103 cases where substance use was documented were not split into subgroups, as all but nine cases involved alcohol use or intoxication (n = 94, 92%), and the 66 psychosis cases were not separated into subcategories. Incidents where a shot was fired, but not at a person, were noted. The police report was also used to determine how the police resolved the situation, adopting one or more of the following categories: immediate detention (involuntary transport for psychiatric evaluation), arrest, voluntary transport to the hospital, and seizure of the weapon for safekeeping. The court records were used to determine the outcome of the court hearing, adopting one or more of the following categories: firearm to be retained by court order, firearm to be retained with the consent of the owner, destruction of the weapon by agreement of the owner, dismissal of the case, transfer of the weapon to another person, failure of owner to appear for the hearing, and suspension of license to own firearms. The court records were also used to determine the outcome of any subsequent court hearing, using similar categories. The data were entered into an Excel workbook and were organized by the year of the initial court hearing. Aggregate statistics were tabulated for the demographics of the people who had a firearm seized, the circumstances of the seizure, and the categories of police and court actions, by the year of the hearing and by demographic groups. The results were statistically compared using the t-test to compare means and Fisher’s exact test to compare proportions, with p < 0.05 as the cut-off for statistical significance. GraphPad QuickCalcs (graphpad.com/quickcalcs/) was utilized for this purpose. This study was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board.
RESULTS A total of 404 firearm seizure cases were heard in Marion Superior Court in the years 2006–2013. The number of firearm seizure cases heard per year ranged from 18 in 2009 to 82 in 2007, as shown in Figure 1. The study findings are summarized in Table 1. The individuals whose weapons were seized were predominantly White (n = 310, 77%) and male (n = 327, 81%). The proportions of White individuals and of male individuals were significantly different ( p = 0.0 on z-test) from the population of Marion County, which the 2010 United States Census showed was 63% White, 90
Number of seizures
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 1. The number of firearm seizure cases filed in Marion Superior Court by year, 2006–2013. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
314
G. F. Parker Table 1. Demographics and summary of findings
Number Proportion Mean age (years) Circumstances of seizure Risk of suicide Domestic Intoxication Risk of violence Psychosis Police action Immediate detention Safekeeping Voluntary transport Arrest Firearms Mean firearms seized % of handgun cases Mean handguns seized % of long gun cases Mean long guns seized Court proceedings Time from seizure to petition Time from petition to resolution Time from seizure to resolution Initial court outcome Retained by court Failure to appear Dismissed Destroyed by agreement Transferred Retained by agreement Firearm license suspended
Total
Black
White
Female
Male
404
94
310
77
327
42.6
23.3% 42.0
76.7% 42.8
19.1% 43.7
80.9% 42.4
68.1% 28.0% 26.0% 20.8% 16.3%
55.3%** 24.5% 9.6%**** 19.2% 28.7%***
71.7% 28.9% 30.9% 21.2% 12.5%
74.3% 19.5% 18.2% 18.2% 23.4%
66.7% 30.0% 27.8% 21.4% 23.4%
74.3% 13.9% 9.4% 7.9%
62.8%** 16.0% 18.1%** 5.3%
77.5% 13.2% 6.8% 8.7%
75.3% 14.3% 11.1% 2.6%
74.0% 13.8% 8.9% 9.2%
2.7 80.5% 1.7 46.5% 2.8
1.5** 92.5%** 1.2* 26.9%**** 1.4*
3.1 77.1% 1.9 52.6% 3.0
1.4* 94.8%*** 1.1 9.1%**** 2.1
3.0 77.1% 1.9 55.4% 2.8
144.0 140.1 284.1 62.6% 53.5% 28.7% 8.9% 5.7% 2.0% 14.1%
178.6* 131.6 309.8 68.1%**** 62.8%**** 22.3% 13.8%* 2.1% 2.1% 11.7%
133.6 142.7 276.4 60.8% 50.5% 30.6% 7.4% 6.8% 1.9% 14.8%
147.2 128.0 275.3
143.2 143.0 286.2
72.7% 66.2% 19.5%* 9.1% 5.2% 0.0% 15.6%
60.2% 50.5% 30.9% 8.9% 5.8% 2.5% 13.8%
*p < 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001.
24% Black, and 48% male. The largest demographic group comprised White males (n = 260, 64%), followed by Black males (n = 67, 17%), White females (n = 50, 12%), and Black females (n = 27, 7%). None of the people whose firearms were seized were identified as Hispanic or Asian in court records, although these groups represented 9% and 2%, respectively, in the 2010 U.S. Census of Marion County. The mean age of the people whose firearms were seized was 42.6 years and the median age was 42.1 years; the range was 17–86 years. The mean age of White defendants was not significantly different from that of Black defendants, nor was the mean age of men different from that of women. The circumstances of the incidents that led to police seizure of a firearm under Indiana Code 35-47-14 fell into five non-exclusive categories, as described in the Methods section (see Figure 2). Threatened or attempted suicide was by far the most common reason for firearm seizure, both over the course of the study (n = 275, 68.1%) and in every year of the study (range 57.1–88.9%). Actual or threatened violence was evident in 21.0% (n = 85) of the cases and psychosis was noted in 16.3% (n = 66). Firearm seizures regularly took place in the context of a domestic disturbance (28.5%, n = 115) and intoxication on alcohol or drugs was noted in 25.5% (n = 103). White individuals were significantly more likely than Black individuals Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
315
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006
2007
% suicide
2008
2009
% violence
2010
2011
% domestic
2012
2013
% psychosis
Figure 2. The reasons for firearm seizures in Marion County by year, 2006–2013, based on police reports.
to have their firearms seized based on a risk of suicide (71.7% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.004) and to be intoxicated (30.9% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.0001) at the time their weapons were seized. Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to be psychotic at the time their weapons were seized (28.7% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences in the proportions of White individuals and Black individuals with regard to risk of violence or to domestic disturbance. There were no significant differences in the proportions of men and women with regard to any of the categories of the circumstances of firearm seizure. Individuals who posed a risk of both suicide and homicide constituted 6.2% (n = 25) of the study population. One (4%) of the individuals was a Black male, four (16%) were White females and 20 (80%) were White males. In 15 of the incidents, the individual threatened suicide and threatened to kill another person, while in six instances, the suicide threat was accompanied by a threat to shoot someone. In two incidents, an individual held a gun to his head and threatened to kill his girlfriend, and in one incident, the individual held a gun to his head and shot at his wife. One individual overdosed and then threatened to shoot police. Further analysis of the circumstances of the firearm seizures showed that, of the 275 individuals whose firearms were seized based on a risk of suicide, nearly two-thirds (n = 188, 68.4%) threatened to commit suicide, another 16.7% (n = 46) held a gun to their head or chest or a knife to their neck, and 15.3% (n = 42) attempted suicide by overdose (n = 21, 7.6%), shooting themselves (n = 15, 5.5%) or cutting themselves (n = 6, 2.2%) (see Table 2). Of the 85 individuals whose firearms were seized in the context of a risk of violence, 28 (32.9%) threatened to kill someone, 15 (17.7%) threatened to harm someone, 15 (16.5%) pointed a gun at someone, and 13 (15.3%) threatened to shoot someone. Most of those threatened were either the individual’s significant other or family members (n = 40, 56.3%). In four (4.7%) incidents, the individual had assaulted someone. The remaining 10 cases where there was a risk of violence involved a variety of circumstances, including threatening to blow-up a county building and to “level” a house, and non-specific threats of violence. The leading subgroup in the 115 domestic disturbances comprised arguments with significant others (n = 45, 39.1%), followed by the end of a relationship (25, 21.7%), threats to family or a significant other without a report of an argument (n = 23, 20.0%), and arguments Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
316
G. F. Parker Table 2. Subcategories of circumstances of firearm seizures
N Threat to kill self Held gun/knife to self Overdose/CO poisoning Shot self Verbal threat to kill Verbal threat to harm Verbal threat to shoot Pointed gun at person Drunk/drinking Argument End of relationship Psychosis Shot fired
All
Black
White
Female
404
94
310
77
51.9% 11.0% 4.5% 2.9% 9.0% 2.6% 3.2% 1.9% 27.4% 12.9% 7.4% 12.3% 9.0%
51.9% 14.3% 2.6% 3.9% 5.2% 6.5% 2.6% 1.3% 15.6% 13.0% 2.6% 23.4% 9.1%
****
46.5% 10.9% 5.2% 3.7% 6.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 23.8% 14.1% 6.2% 16.3% 8.2%
28.7% 10.6% 7.4% 6.4% 0.0%*** 6.4% 4.3% 7.4%* 9.6%*** 18.1% 2.1% 28.7%*** 6.4%
Male 327 45.3% 10.1% 5.8% 3.7% 7.3% 3.1% 3.7% 3.7% 25.1% 14.4% 7.0% 14.4% 8.3%
*p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.001, ***p ≤ 0.0001.
with family members (n = 12, 10.4%). In four instances (3.5%), an individual struck a significant other or family member. The remaining six cases comprised a variety of circumstances, including relationship problems, vague threats to family, and shooting at a wife. Two of the individuals from whom firearms were seized later died of suicide, one man the day after he shot himself and another when he committed suicide two months after his handguns were seized. Analysis of the subgroups of the circumstances of the firearm seizures by the demographic subgroups in the study population revealed few significant differences (see Table 3). When Black women and Black men were compared, the only significant difference was a higher prevalence of psychosis in Black women at the time of firearm seizure (44.4% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found in a comparison of White women and White men. No significant differences were found in a comparison of women and men. When Black individuals were compared with White individuals, though, three highly significant differences emerged. White individuals Table 3. Circumstances of firearm seizure by demographic groups
N Threat to kill self Held gun/knife to self Overdose/CO poisoning Shot self Verbal threat to kill Verbal threat to harm Verbal threat to shoot Pointed gun at person Drunk/drinking Argument End of relationship Psychosis Shot fired
All
Black female
Black male
White female
White male
404
27
67
50
260
46.5% 10.9% 5.2% 3.7% 6.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 23.8% 14.1% 6.2% 16.3% 8.2%
33.3% 18.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.8% 0.0% 44.4%* 7.4%
26.9% 7.5% 10.5% 9.0% 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 10.5% 13.4% 19.4% 3.0% 22.4% 4.5%
62.0% 12.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 24.0% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0% 10.0%
50.0% 10.8% 4.6% 2.3% 9.2% 1.9% 3.2% 1.9% 25.4% 13.1% 8.1% 12.3% 8.8%
*p < 0.05. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
317
were much more likely than Black individuals to have made a verbal threat to kill someone, as not one Black individual made such a threat (9.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0007). White individuals were also much more likely than Black individuals to be intoxicated with alcohol or to have been drinking at the time of the firearm seizure (27.4% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.0002). As noted earlier, Black individuals were much more likely than White individuals to be psychotic (28.7% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.0004). Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to have pointed a gun at someone during the incident (7.4% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.01). Shots were fired, though not at a person, in 33 (8.2%) of the incidents that led to firearm seizure. Most of the gunshots took place during incidents involving a threat of suicide (n = 21, 63.6%). Only four gunshots (19.0%) occurred where there was a risk of violence, but 12 incidents of gunshots were related to intoxication with alcohol (n = 10, 47.6%), with one incident each of cocaine and alprazolam use. Three gunshots (14.3%) were fired by individuals described as psychotic and, in two instances, an individual threatened others by firing his weapon. Police action at the time of firearm seizure fell into four categories (see Figure 3). Immediate detention, or involuntary transport of the individual to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation, was by far the most common police action at the time of the firearm seizure (74.3%, n = 300). Individuals agreed to go to the hospital voluntarily in 9.4% (n = 38) of the cases. The outcomes of these hospital evaluations were not available in the court records. In 13.9% (n = 56) of cases, the only action taken by police was the seizure of the weapons for safekeeping. Police arrested the individual from whom they seized a firearm in 7.9% (n = 32) of the incidents, often in conjunction with immediate detention (n = 19, 59.4%). White subjects were significantly more likely than Black subjects to be immediately detained (77.5% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.005), but Black subjects were significantly more likely than White subjects to agree to voluntary transport to the hospital (18.1% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between White and Black individuals with regard to arrest or safekeeping of firearms. Men were more likely than women to be arrested (9.2% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between men and women with regard to the remaining three categories of police action at the time of firearm seizure. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Immediate detention
Arrest
Voluntary transport
Safekeeping of weapon
2013
Figure 3. Police action at the time of firearm seizure in Marion County by year, 2006–2013. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
318
G. F. Parker
Police seized an average of 2.7 (SD = 5.03) weapons per incident, although the median and mode, which were both 1.0, showed that a handful of cases skewed the average. Police seized 10 or more firearms in 17 incidents, all of which involved a White individual (16 men and one woman). In 14 of the 17 cases, the number of weapons seized was between 10 and 20, and the largest number of weapons involved in one incident was 82. Overall, Marion County police seized a total of 1,096 firearms using the firearm seizure law, consisting of 555 handguns and 525 long guns (rifles or shotguns); in two cases, in which a total of 16 firearms were seized, the categories of the weapons seized was not available. When long guns were seized, police took custody of significantly more long guns (n = 188 cases, mean = 2.8 long guns per incident, SD = 3.6) than in the 325 incidents when handguns were seized (n = 325 cases, mean = 1.7 handguns per incident, SD = 2.9, p = 0.0002). Police seized significantly more weapons per incident from White individuals (mean = 3.1, SD = 5.66) than from Black individuals (mean = 1.5, SD = 1.1, p = 0.007) and from men (mean = 3.0, SD = 5.5) than from women (mean = 1.4, SD = 1.3, p = 0.01). Women were significantly more likely to have only one weapon seized (n = 66, 85.7%) than men (n = 171, 52.3%, p = 0.0001). When a weapon was seized from a Black person, it was very likely to be a handgun (92.5%, n = 86), which was a significantly higher proportion than when a weapon was seized from a White person (77.1%, n = 239, p = 0.002). When a weapon was seized from a woman, the likelihood that it was a handgun was significantly higher than when a weapon was seized from a man (94.8% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.0002); however, men had significantly more handguns seized (mean = 1.8, SD = 3.2) per incident than women (1.1, SD = 0.5, p = 0.05). White individuals were significantly more likely than Black individuals (52.6% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.0001) and men were significantly more likely than women (55.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.0001) to have long guns seized. The petition to retain firearms seized by police under IC 35-47-14 was filed by the Marion County prosecutor a mean of 140.1 days (SD = 149.2) and a median of 86 days after the firearms were seized (range 8–943 days). The time to filing of the petition by the prosecutor decreased significantly over the last 3 years of the study period; between 2006 and 2010, the mean interval was 176.9 days (SD = 164.5), but it decreased to 88.0 days between 2011 and 2013 (SD = 105.9, p = 0.0001). The cases were resolved an average of 140.1 days (SD = 149.2) after the petition was filed (median = 86 days, range 8–943 days). After 2006, when this interval was a mean of 53.9 days, the time to initial resolution after the petition was filed averaged 149.3 days. Over the course of the study period, the resolution of the case occurred, on average, 284.1 days (SD = 217.5) after the seizure of the weapon, with a median of 224 days and a range of 25–1,418 days. Only one significant difference emerged when the length of the proceedings was studied by demographic group: the prosecutor took significantly longer to file petitions against Black individuals (mean = 178.3 days, SD = 195.5) than against White individuals (mean = 133.6 days, SD = 137.0, p = 0.01). The primary outcome of the court proceedings after a firearm was seized by police under Indiana Code 35-47-12 was court-ordered retention of the weapon by the police (62.6%, n = 253) (see Figure 4). In the first 3 years of implementation of the law, the court-ordered retention was based on two scenarios: either a finding by the court that the person was dangerous, which was accompanied by suspension of the person’s license to carry a handgun, or the failure of the defendant to appear for the hearing. In 2006, the court suspended the license to carry handguns in 35 of the 56 cases (62.5%) in which the individual was present for the hearing and in each of the 10 cases Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
319
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Retained by court
Destroyed by agreement
Case dismissed
Firearms transferred
2013
Failure to appear
Figure 4. The outcome of the initial court hearing of firearm seizure cases heard in Marion County by year, 2006–2013.
when the individual failed to appear. In 2007, the court suspended the license to carry handguns in six out of 29 cases (20.7%) when the defendant was present for the hearing and only three times out of 54 cases (5.6%) when the defendant failed to appear in court. In 2008, the court suspended the license to carry only three times, all in January, each time after a hearing, but only once when the weapons were retained by the court. For the remainder of the study, from February 2008 through 2013, the court did not suspend any licenses to carry handguns and ordered retention of firearms only when the defendant failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. Retention of the firearm by the court was the leading outcome in every year but one, often by a substantial margin (see Figure 4). Court retention of the seized firearms closely tracked the gun owner’s failure to appear in court for the retention hearing; indeed, after the first year (17.9%, n = 10), the frequency of failure to appear was very close, if not identical, to the frequency of court retention of the weapons. Dismissal of the case was a regular outcome of court proceedings after the first 2 years of the study, as the frequency of dismissal ranged from 23.8% to 61.4% of cases from 2008 to 2012. The seized weapons were transferred to another person in 5.7% (n = 23) of cases over the course of the study. The firearms were destroyed with the consent of the gun owner in 8.9% (n = 36) of cases. The court ordered the destruction of the weapons in an initial hearing only once, in 2007. The court ordered the suspension of the individual’s license to carry a firearm in 80.4% (n = 45) of the cases in 2006, but the frequency of this action dropped precipitously thereafter, to 10.8% (n = 9) of all cases heard in 2007, 5.2% (n = 3, all in January 2008) of all cases heard in 2008, and to 0.0% in all subsequent years. Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to have the court order retention of their firearms (68.1% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.0001) and to fail to appear in court (62.8% vs. 50.5%, p = 0.0001). Black individuals were also significantly more likely than White individuals to agree to the destruction of their weapons (13.8% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.01). Men were significantly more likely than women to have their case dismissed by the court (30.9% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.002). The Marion Superior Court held subsequent hearings on firearm seizure cases 111 times between 2007 and 2011. In 78 (72.1%) of these hearings, all of which took place 5 years after the initial court hearing, the individual failed to appear and the court Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
320
G. F. Parker
ordered the destruction of the weapons. In two cases that were originally heard in 2007, the individual failed to appear for a subsequent hearing, one in 2009 and one in 2010; these were set out for final hearing 5 years later. Another 27 cases (24.3%) were dismissed at the subsequent hearing, but in four of the dismissals (14.8%), all in 2007, the individuals agreed to destruction of their firearms, and in three dismissals (11.1%) the individuals agreed to transfer the weapons to another person. Two of the remaining four cases were settled by voluntary destruction of the weapons and two resulted in the scheduling of a 5-year follow-up hearing.
DISCUSSION The outcomes of the court cases in Marion County between 2006 and 2013 that involved Indiana’s firearm seizure statute showed that the law was used sparingly, as petitions for retention of seized firearms were filed an average of once a week over the course of the 8-year study period. In a city with over 330,000 households, in a state where about 39% of households own a firearm (Okora et al., 2005), the 404 cases in this study affected a very small fraction (~0.04%) of the gun-owning households in Marion County on an annual basis. It is difficult to say if the adoption of this law by Indianapolis police prevented the use of a firearm to commit suicide or injure someone. In each of the cases filed by prosecutors, the police had been called to a scene by the individual, a family member or friend, or a neighbor or witness of some sort, so some type of intervention was already likely to occur. Many Indianapolis police officers have completed Crisis Intervention Team training, so it is perhaps not surprising that the common police response in the situations that led to firearm seizure was transporting the person to a nearby hospital for evaluation, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Removal of the weapons at the time of transport surely simplified the task of the mental health professionals who then evaluated these individuals, as they no longer had to be concerned about access to weapons in the home, but it is impossible to say if the seizure had any material impact on the outcome of the evaluation. The demographics of the people from whom police seized weapons revealed some interesting patterns. White men were the largest demographic group by far in the study population (64%) and were disproportionately represented relative to the Marion County census results. However, White males are also the demographic group most likely to own firearms in the United States, according to a 2014 Pew Research Center report (Morin, 2014), which showed that 38% of men, 31% of women, 41% of White individuals, and 19% of Black individuals owned guns. The demographics of the study population were thus perhaps not as disproportionate as they might appear. Nonetheless, the pattern of police seizure suggests the presence of a racial bias in non-criminal seizure of weapons in the community. If the data were available, it would be interesting to compare the results of this study with the demographics of police seizures of illegal weapons in Marion County. Other suggestions of differences in firearm seizure based on race can be seen in the demographics of the circumstances of the seizures. Although a risk of suicide was the most common reason for firearm seizure, it was much more common in incidents involving White individuals than those involving Black individuals. Although there was no significant difference in the frequency of risk of violence as a reason for firearm seizure between Black and White individuals, Black individuals were significantly more Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
321
likely than White individuals to be psychotic at the time of seizure, while White individuals were significantly more likely to be intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. None of the Black individuals who had a firearm seized threatened to kill another person, which is potentially grounds for a charge of intimidation, in contrast to 9% of White individuals. However, Black individuals were more likely than White individuals to have a firearm seized after pointing a firearm at another person, which is also grounds for arrest. Overall, there was no significant difference in arrest based on race. Police were significantly more likely to immediately detain White individuals in incidents that led to firearm seizure, but Black individuals were significantly more likely to be transported voluntarily to the hospital; however, when these categories were combined, into all who were taken to the hospital by police, the difference was no longer significant (p = 0.2). Although it is not clear how these results fit into a pattern, they can be seen as an indication of who police view as dangerous. After the first year, the resolution in court of the firearm seizure cases settled into a pattern controlled by one major factor: whether the individual came to court for the court hearing on retention of the seized firearms. If the individual did not show up in court at the appointed date and time, the court typically retained the weapons and, after the passage of 5 years, ordered the destruction of the firearms. If the individual was present at either the initial hearing or any subsequent hearing, it was very likely that the case would be dismissed and the weapons would be returned. In 2006, the first year of hearings, the judge suspended the license to carry a handgun in 80% of the firearm seizure cases heard, which meant the state had met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person met Indiana statutory criteria for being dangerous. As the circumstances of police seizure of firearms in 2006 did not differ appreciably from the circumstances of the seizures in the years 2007–2013, it appears the frequent decision to dismiss a case was not made based on the strength of the case, but only on whether the individual appeared at the initial court hearing. The reason(s) for this change could not be determined from the available data. So, what do these results contribute to the national debate about gun violence? The right of an individual to own firearms is protected by the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). Federal background checks have focused on preventing “prohibited persons,” including felons and people with a history of civil commitment, from legally purchasing handguns, but it is clear that background checks do not prevent people from illegally purchasing weapons, which are widely available in the United States. In addition, background checks are unlikely to prevent mass shootings. As noted in the Introduction, the shooters in five recent high-profile multiple homicides either purchased their weapons legally or had access to legally purchased weapons. Given that guns are widely available across the U.S., and are likely to remain widely available, the public policy issue then becomes two-fold: how to identify people who are at high risk of violence and then how to decrease the risk of serious violence by removing firearms from those people. Connecticut, Indiana, New York, Texas, and California have each taken small steps towards this goal. Each state has chosen a different procedural route, but all of them provide a legal means of seizing legally owned firearms from people believed to be dangerous. In Connecticut and Indiana, the police make the determination of dangerousness; in New York, clinicians initiate the process based on dangerousness; in Texas, police may seize weapons in the context of serving a court order for involuntary psychiatric evaluation, which is often based on a danger to self or others; and in California, Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
322
G. F. Parker
relatives can make a request to the court based on their determination of dangerousness. The experience of Marion County, where Indiana’s firearm seizure law has been in use for 8 years, suggests that this approach, while conceptually appealing, has had a very modest impact. One firearm seizure per week in a large city is truly a drop in a large bucket of potentially dangerous people who may have access to guns. Nonetheless, it is heartening to consider that one or more of the 404 firearms seizures in Marion County over 8 years might have prevented a tragedy from occurring.
CONCLUSION Overall, the Indiana law functioned as intended on the streets, where it provided a legal means for police to seize firearms from people who appeared to them to present a risk of danger to self or others. If the person whose weapon was seized did not appear in court to seek the return of the weapon, it was retained and, ultimately, destroyed. If the individual did appear in court, the weapons were returned and the case was dismissed; in these cases, the Indiana law essentially provided for a cooling-off period lasting an average of 9 months.
REFERENCES District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US570 (2008). Freedman, D. (2013). Texas clarifies mental crisis gun policy. Houston Chronicle, October 18, 2013. Available at: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Texas-clarifies-mentalcrisis-guns-policy-4908331.php [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Morin, R. (2014). The demographics and politics of gun-owning households. Pew Research Center website, 7/15/14. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-ofgun-owning-households/ [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Norko, M., & Baranoski, M. (2014). Gun control legislation in Connecticut: effects on persons with mental illness. Connecticut Law Review, 46(4), 1609–1631. Okora, C. A., Nelson, D. E., Mercy, J. A., Balluz, L. S., Crosby, A. E., & Mokdad, A. H. (2005). Prevalence of household firearms and firearms storage practices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia: findings from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2002. Pediatrics, 116(3), e370–376. Parker, G. F. (2010). Application of a firearm seizure law aimed at dangerous persons: Outcomes from the first two years. Psychiatric Services, 61(5), 478–482. Rose, V., & Reilly, M. (2008). Gun Seizure Law. Report No. 2008-R-0280, Office of Legal Research, Connecticut General Assembly. Available at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0280.htm [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Simpson, J. R. (2007). Bad risk? An overview of laws prohibiting possession of firearms by individuals with a history of treatment for mental illness. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(3), 330–338.
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and Outcomes of a Firearm Seizure Law: Marion County, Indiana, 2006–2013 George F. Parker, M.D.* Indiana statute allows police to seize firearms without a warrant if the officer believes a person meets the law’s definition of “dangerous.” Review of the use of this law in Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana, showed that prosecutors filed petitions in court to retain weapons seized by police under this law 404 times between 2006 and 2013. Police removed weapons from people due to identification of a risk of suicide (68%) or violence (21%), or the presence of psychosis (16%). The firearm seizures occurred in the context of domestic disputes in 28% of cases and intoxication was noted in 26% of cases. There were significant demographic differences in the circumstances of firearm seizures and the firearms seized. The seized firearms were retained by the court at the initial hearing in 63% of cases; this retention was closely linked to the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court dismissed 29% of cases at the initial hearing, closely linked to the defendant’s presence at the hearing. In subsequent hearings of cases not dismissed, the court ordered the destruction of the firearms in 72% of cases, all when the individual did not appear in court, and dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing. Overall, the Indiana law removed weapons from a small number of people, most of whom did not seek return of their weapons. The firearm seizure law thus functioned as a months-long cooling-off period for those who did seek the return of their guns. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In the past 4 years, there have been several high-profile multiple homicides in the United States, including mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona (2011), Aurora, Colorado (2012), Newtown, Connecticut (2012), the Washington Navy Yard (2013) and Santa Barbara, California (2014). In each of these tragedies, the shooter was known or presumed to have a serious mental illness, and after each of these mass shootings, a public discussion quickly arose about how to prevent people who have a mental illness from owning or gaining access to firearms. The United States has a long history of protecting an individual’s right to own firearms, based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The United States also has a long history of trying to prevent people with mental illness from legally owning firearms (Simpson, 2007), beginning in 1968 with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited “mentally incompetent” or “mental defective” individuals from owning guns. Since 1993, enforcement of these provisions has relied on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by the Brady *Correspondence to: George F. Parker, M.D., Director of Forensic Psychiatry, IU Health Neuroscience th Center, 355 West 16 St., Suite 2800, Indianapolis, IN 46202, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
309
Handgun Violence Prevention Act, but for years relatively few states consistently provided data on persons prohibited from owning a gun due to mental illness, as became apparent after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. In addition to federal legislation, the individual states also passed laws restricting people with mental illness from owning firearms. Despite this legal framework, the shooters in each of the mass shootings listed here either purchased the guns used in the shootings legally or had access to weapons that had been legally purchased by a family member. A fact often overlooked in the storm of argument that arises after a mass shooting is that such occurrences are rare. Mass shootings represent only a very small fraction of the thousands of gun deaths, the majority of which are suicides, which occur every year in the United States. Even if a means could be devised to prevent all mass shootings, the overall impact on the total number of gun deaths would be small. However, highprofile shootings have prompted legislative reactions that may prove to have an impact on gun violence in general. The most well-known example of this is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which came after John Hinckley shot and critically wounded both President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, James Brady, in 1981. Examples of this phenomenon at the state level can be found in Connecticut in 1998, in Indiana in 2006, in New York in 2013, and in California in 2014, where high-profile shootings prompted state legislatures to pass laws that allowed police to seize legally owned weapons from individuals if they believed there was a risk of suicide or violence. These laws essentially allow preemptive confiscation of weapons based on the presumption that doing so may prevent gun violence. Study of the use of these laws over time may contribute something often lacking in the debate over the interaction between mental illness and gun violence: data. In 2005, after one Indianapolis police officer was killed and four officers were wounded by a man with paranoid schizophrenia wielding an assault rifle, Indiana became the second state to enact a law allowing police to seize firearms from people believed to be mentally ill and dangerous. The Indianapolis shooter had previously had his weapons and ammunition confiscated by police after they found him to be acutely psychotic and involuntarily transported him to a local hospital. Because he was not civilly committed by the hospital, when the shooter later asked for the return of his firearms, the police had no legal grounds to refuse his request, despite their strong reservations about doing so. The Indiana legislature thus focused on crafting a law that would prevent a recurrence of this scenario. Indiana Code 35-47-14 begins by defining “dangerous” in a two-step process. First, a person must present either “an imminent risk of personal injury” to self or others, or “a risk of personal injury… in the future,” also to self or others. Secondly, the person must either have “a mental illness,” as defined in the Indiana civil commitment statute, for which the individual has not been taking medication to control the illness, or the person must show “evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.” A police officer who believes a person meets this definition of dangerous may request a warrant to search for and seize a firearm or may effect a warrantless seizure, followed by submission of a written statement to the court describing why the officer believed the person was dangerous. The court must then conduct an initial hearing to determine if the weapon is to be returned to the individual or retained by law enforcement. The state has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person was dangerous at the time of the firearm seizure. If the court retains a person’s firearm, the individual Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
310
G. F. Parker
may petition for its return 180 days after each court hearing. If the court retains a firearm and receives no request for its return over a period of 5 years, it may order the destruction of the firearm after a final hearing. Indiana’s law differs in important ways from the laws in California, Connecticut, New York, and Texas, the four other states that have laws that permit police to seize firearms from people considered to be dangerous or mentally ill. Connecticut’s firearm seizure law (Connecticut General Statutes 29-38c) was passed in 1998, as Public Law 99–212, after a multiple homicide by a man who had a history of depression and attempted suicide. Under this law, Connecticut police must request a warrant before seizing weapons from a person who is believed to present “a risk of imminent personal injury” to self or others. Connecticut police must conduct an “independent investigation” before requesting the warrant and the judge must consider several factors before granting the warrant. If the warrant is granted, the court must conduct a subsequent hearing within 2 weeks to decide whether to return the guns or to hold them for up to 1 year. The Connecticut statute’s requirement that police obtain a warrant before seizing a firearm from an individual is thus more stringent than Indiana firearm seizure law, which allows warrantless seizure. New York passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (SAFE Act) in response to the shootings at Newtown. One of its several provisions amended New York’s Mental Hygiene Law by adding a section (9.46) that requires mental health professionals to report any person believed to be dangerous to self or others to a county mental health official. If the official agrees with the determination of dangerousness, the report is forwarded to the state department of criminal justice services, which must then determine if the reported person has a firearms license. If the person does have a firearms license, the licensing authority is notified, the license must be suspended or revoked and the firearms must be surrendered, with the assistance of police if necessary. The New York law relies on mental health professionals to make a determination of dangerousness, in contrast to the Indiana law, which asks police officers to make that decision. The Texas Legislature added Article 18.191 to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in 2013. This law codifies the procedures to be followed if a police officer seizes a firearm in the process of detaining and transporting a person for evaluation regarding the civil commitment of that individual. Police in Texas must follow up on such a seizure by asking the court if the person was court-ordered to receive in-patient mental health treatment. If the person was so ordered, as a result of being civilly committed, police must inform the person that, under federal statute, they may no longer own, possess, or purchase a firearm. The person may transfer the firearm to a lawful designee or permit police to dispose of the weapon. In the latter case, or if police receive no response from the person, police may sell the weapon, but are not permitted to destroy it. The Texas law thus allows police to seize firearms in the context of involuntary transportation for mental health evaluation and treatment, but it allows retention of the firearms only if the individual is subsequently civilly committed. Both of these elements represent important procedural differences from the Indiana firearm seizure law. The governor of California signed AB104, also known as the Gun Violence Restraining Order law, in October 2014, with an effective date of January 1, 2015. This law allows family members to seek a restraining order from a judge in order to remove firearms from a relative whom they believe is dangerous. The legislation arose in the aftermath of the Santa Barbara mass shooting, as it was learned that police had Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
311
interviewed the shooter outside his apartment after his family and therapist asked them to do so. Had the police searched the apartment, it is likely they would have found the weapons used in the shootings. Research on the use of state firearm seizure laws has been limited. The use of the Indiana firearm seizure law was the subject of one prior study (Parker, 2010), which examined the circumstances of police seizures of firearms in Marion County, and the court outcomes after such seizures, in 2006 and 2007. In a majority of the 133 cases studied, the law was used by police to seize weapons from people who were suicidal; other causes for gun seizure included a risk of violence, a domestic disturbance, and psychosis. A large majority of the individuals whose guns were seized were involuntarily transported to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation at the time of the incident. Court hearings held in 2006 resulted in retention of the firearms seized in 95% of the cases, 53% by court order and 42% by agreement of the individual; no instances of failure to appear were noted in the 2010 article. In 2007, the results in court showed a different pattern, as the court ordered retention of weapons in only 8% of cases and individuals agreed to retention in 14% of cases, while firearms were returned to the owner in 12% of cases; however, in 68% of cases, the court retained the weapons due to the failure of the defendant to appear in court. There have been two research studies on the Connecticut firearm seizure law. In a 2008 report for the Connecticut Legislature, Rose and Reilly (2008) found that the law had been used about 20 times per year between 1999 and 2008. There had been 222 requests for warrants, 219 of which were granted; two requests had been denied by the court and one individual surrendered his weapons voluntarily. A risk of suicide was the most frequent reason for requesting a warrant to seize firearms (n = 91, 40%), followed by risk of homicide (n = 30, 14%), threat of violence (n = 27, 12%), and threat of murder and suicide (n = 19, 9%). Police seized weapons in 95% of the cases (n = 208) when a warrant was issued and had confiscated a total of 1,713 weapons; in 5% of cases (n = 11), they found no weapons. Information on the outcome of the court proceedings after the weapons were seized was available in 72% of the cases (n = 149). The courts upheld the seizure in 81% (n = 120) of these cases and ordered the guns held (n = 76, 63%), transferred (n = 18, 15%), destroyed (n = 17, 14%), sold (n = 9, 8%), or returned to the individual (n = 22, 15%). Norko and Baranoski (2014) wrote that Connecticut had used its firearm seizure law 764 times between October 1999 and July 2013; 53% of the warrants had been issued after 2010. The average age of the people who were issued warrants was 47.4 years, and 91.5% (n = 700) of the warrants were issued to men. The warrants were issued based on a risk of self-harm in 51% (n = 357) of the cases involving men and 83% (n = 53) of the cases involving women; a risk of violence was the reason for 24% (n = 168) of the warrants for men and 15% (n = 10) of the warrants for women. Police noted evidence of alcohol use in about 30% of the cases, drug use in less than 5%, and use of prescribed pain medication in 10%. Conflict with a significant other and depression were the two most common circumstances associated with the issuance of a warrant to seize firearms. Most people served with such a warrant were then evaluated in an emergency room (60% of men and 80% of women); 20% were arrested and 16% were both arrested and evaluated in an emergency room. The outcome of the subsequent court hearings was known for less than 30% of the cases. In these cases, the firearms were retained 68% of the time, and the remaining weapons were destroyed (30 cases), returned (20 cases), or transferred to a family member (15 cases). Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
312
G. F. Parker
Much less information is available on the use of the New York and Texas laws, and the California law has only just gone into effect. No research has been published on the use of these state laws in the academic literature, based on searches of PsycINFO and PubMed. A Google search yielded only an October 2013 article in the Houston Chronicle (Freedman, 2013), which noted that the Houston Police Department, which had advocated for the new law, had seized firearms in the context of a civil commitment 47 times in 2012 and 48 times through October of 2013. This article will extend the previous study on the use of Indiana’s firearm seizure law in Marion County to the period of 2006–2013. Marion County is contiguous with the city of Indianapolis and is the most populous county in Indiana – the 2010 population, according to the United States Census, was 903,393. Since Indiana’s firearm seizure law was passed in response to the death of an Indianapolis police officer, Indianapolis police began to use the law shortly after its passage and have used it consistently since then. Although there is no statewide database on the use of this law, to the author’s knowledge, the law has been used only sporadically in other Indiana counties. This article will describe the circumstances and outcomes of 404 court proceedings in Marion County, Indiana, between 2006 and 2013 related to police seizure of firearms under Indiana Code 35-47-14.
METHODS All firearm seizure cases in Marion County are heard in one court, a minor felony and misdemeanor criminal court. The firearm seizure cases are heard in a designated time slot and the court files are kept together, separate from other criminal cases. The public records for each of the firearm seizure cases heard during the years 2006–2013 were reviewed. These consisted of the probable cause affidavit, which included the police report of the incident that led to the firearm seizure, as well as subsequent court filings regarding the proceedings and the chronological record of the court’s actions. Any mental health records that were part of the court file were protected as confidential by Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G) and were not reviewed. The police report was used to determine the circumstances of the seizure, using one or more of the following broad categories: risk of suicide, risk of violence, or active psychosis. The presence of a risk of suicide was based on the individual threatening or attempting suicide. A risk of violence was based on the individual threatening to kill, shoot, or hurt others or having already hurt others. The presence of psychosis was based on a report of paranoia, hallucinations or disorganized thinking in the absence of intoxication. Domestic disturbance was defined for the purposes of this study as an argument or fight between family members or people in a relationship or if the incident took place in the context of the end of a relationship. Intoxication with alcohol or drugs was noted if it was documented in the police report. After each incident was reviewed for the presence of these five categories, the individual circumstances of each incident were reviewed and sorted into groups based on the subgroups in each category. Incidents with a risk of suicide were split into verbal threat of suicide, holding a gun or knife to self, suicide attempt by gunshot, and other suicide attempts. Incidents with a risk of violence were broken into those who had threatened to kill another person, shoot someone, or harm someone, or who had pointed a gun at someone else. Domestic disturbances were separated into arguments with significant others Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
313
(spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend), arguments with others, threats to family without an argument, and the end of a relationship. The 103 cases where substance use was documented were not split into subgroups, as all but nine cases involved alcohol use or intoxication (n = 94, 92%), and the 66 psychosis cases were not separated into subcategories. Incidents where a shot was fired, but not at a person, were noted. The police report was also used to determine how the police resolved the situation, adopting one or more of the following categories: immediate detention (involuntary transport for psychiatric evaluation), arrest, voluntary transport to the hospital, and seizure of the weapon for safekeeping. The court records were used to determine the outcome of the court hearing, adopting one or more of the following categories: firearm to be retained by court order, firearm to be retained with the consent of the owner, destruction of the weapon by agreement of the owner, dismissal of the case, transfer of the weapon to another person, failure of owner to appear for the hearing, and suspension of license to own firearms. The court records were also used to determine the outcome of any subsequent court hearing, using similar categories. The data were entered into an Excel workbook and were organized by the year of the initial court hearing. Aggregate statistics were tabulated for the demographics of the people who had a firearm seized, the circumstances of the seizure, and the categories of police and court actions, by the year of the hearing and by demographic groups. The results were statistically compared using the t-test to compare means and Fisher’s exact test to compare proportions, with p < 0.05 as the cut-off for statistical significance. GraphPad QuickCalcs (graphpad.com/quickcalcs/) was utilized for this purpose. This study was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board.
RESULTS A total of 404 firearm seizure cases were heard in Marion Superior Court in the years 2006–2013. The number of firearm seizure cases heard per year ranged from 18 in 2009 to 82 in 2007, as shown in Figure 1. The study findings are summarized in Table 1. The individuals whose weapons were seized were predominantly White (n = 310, 77%) and male (n = 327, 81%). The proportions of White individuals and of male individuals were significantly different ( p = 0.0 on z-test) from the population of Marion County, which the 2010 United States Census showed was 63% White, 90
Number of seizures
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 1. The number of firearm seizure cases filed in Marion Superior Court by year, 2006–2013. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
314
G. F. Parker Table 1. Demographics and summary of findings
Number Proportion Mean age (years) Circumstances of seizure Risk of suicide Domestic Intoxication Risk of violence Psychosis Police action Immediate detention Safekeeping Voluntary transport Arrest Firearms Mean firearms seized % of handgun cases Mean handguns seized % of long gun cases Mean long guns seized Court proceedings Time from seizure to petition Time from petition to resolution Time from seizure to resolution Initial court outcome Retained by court Failure to appear Dismissed Destroyed by agreement Transferred Retained by agreement Firearm license suspended
Total
Black
White
Female
Male
404
94
310
77
327
42.6
23.3% 42.0
76.7% 42.8
19.1% 43.7
80.9% 42.4
68.1% 28.0% 26.0% 20.8% 16.3%
55.3%** 24.5% 9.6%**** 19.2% 28.7%***
71.7% 28.9% 30.9% 21.2% 12.5%
74.3% 19.5% 18.2% 18.2% 23.4%
66.7% 30.0% 27.8% 21.4% 23.4%
74.3% 13.9% 9.4% 7.9%
62.8%** 16.0% 18.1%** 5.3%
77.5% 13.2% 6.8% 8.7%
75.3% 14.3% 11.1% 2.6%
74.0% 13.8% 8.9% 9.2%
2.7 80.5% 1.7 46.5% 2.8
1.5** 92.5%** 1.2* 26.9%**** 1.4*
3.1 77.1% 1.9 52.6% 3.0
1.4* 94.8%*** 1.1 9.1%**** 2.1
3.0 77.1% 1.9 55.4% 2.8
144.0 140.1 284.1 62.6% 53.5% 28.7% 8.9% 5.7% 2.0% 14.1%
178.6* 131.6 309.8 68.1%**** 62.8%**** 22.3% 13.8%* 2.1% 2.1% 11.7%
133.6 142.7 276.4 60.8% 50.5% 30.6% 7.4% 6.8% 1.9% 14.8%
147.2 128.0 275.3
143.2 143.0 286.2
72.7% 66.2% 19.5%* 9.1% 5.2% 0.0% 15.6%
60.2% 50.5% 30.9% 8.9% 5.8% 2.5% 13.8%
*p < 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001.
24% Black, and 48% male. The largest demographic group comprised White males (n = 260, 64%), followed by Black males (n = 67, 17%), White females (n = 50, 12%), and Black females (n = 27, 7%). None of the people whose firearms were seized were identified as Hispanic or Asian in court records, although these groups represented 9% and 2%, respectively, in the 2010 U.S. Census of Marion County. The mean age of the people whose firearms were seized was 42.6 years and the median age was 42.1 years; the range was 17–86 years. The mean age of White defendants was not significantly different from that of Black defendants, nor was the mean age of men different from that of women. The circumstances of the incidents that led to police seizure of a firearm under Indiana Code 35-47-14 fell into five non-exclusive categories, as described in the Methods section (see Figure 2). Threatened or attempted suicide was by far the most common reason for firearm seizure, both over the course of the study (n = 275, 68.1%) and in every year of the study (range 57.1–88.9%). Actual or threatened violence was evident in 21.0% (n = 85) of the cases and psychosis was noted in 16.3% (n = 66). Firearm seizures regularly took place in the context of a domestic disturbance (28.5%, n = 115) and intoxication on alcohol or drugs was noted in 25.5% (n = 103). White individuals were significantly more likely than Black individuals Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
315
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006
2007
% suicide
2008
2009
% violence
2010
2011
% domestic
2012
2013
% psychosis
Figure 2. The reasons for firearm seizures in Marion County by year, 2006–2013, based on police reports.
to have their firearms seized based on a risk of suicide (71.7% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.004) and to be intoxicated (30.9% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.0001) at the time their weapons were seized. Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to be psychotic at the time their weapons were seized (28.7% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences in the proportions of White individuals and Black individuals with regard to risk of violence or to domestic disturbance. There were no significant differences in the proportions of men and women with regard to any of the categories of the circumstances of firearm seizure. Individuals who posed a risk of both suicide and homicide constituted 6.2% (n = 25) of the study population. One (4%) of the individuals was a Black male, four (16%) were White females and 20 (80%) were White males. In 15 of the incidents, the individual threatened suicide and threatened to kill another person, while in six instances, the suicide threat was accompanied by a threat to shoot someone. In two incidents, an individual held a gun to his head and threatened to kill his girlfriend, and in one incident, the individual held a gun to his head and shot at his wife. One individual overdosed and then threatened to shoot police. Further analysis of the circumstances of the firearm seizures showed that, of the 275 individuals whose firearms were seized based on a risk of suicide, nearly two-thirds (n = 188, 68.4%) threatened to commit suicide, another 16.7% (n = 46) held a gun to their head or chest or a knife to their neck, and 15.3% (n = 42) attempted suicide by overdose (n = 21, 7.6%), shooting themselves (n = 15, 5.5%) or cutting themselves (n = 6, 2.2%) (see Table 2). Of the 85 individuals whose firearms were seized in the context of a risk of violence, 28 (32.9%) threatened to kill someone, 15 (17.7%) threatened to harm someone, 15 (16.5%) pointed a gun at someone, and 13 (15.3%) threatened to shoot someone. Most of those threatened were either the individual’s significant other or family members (n = 40, 56.3%). In four (4.7%) incidents, the individual had assaulted someone. The remaining 10 cases where there was a risk of violence involved a variety of circumstances, including threatening to blow-up a county building and to “level” a house, and non-specific threats of violence. The leading subgroup in the 115 domestic disturbances comprised arguments with significant others (n = 45, 39.1%), followed by the end of a relationship (25, 21.7%), threats to family or a significant other without a report of an argument (n = 23, 20.0%), and arguments Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
316
G. F. Parker Table 2. Subcategories of circumstances of firearm seizures
N Threat to kill self Held gun/knife to self Overdose/CO poisoning Shot self Verbal threat to kill Verbal threat to harm Verbal threat to shoot Pointed gun at person Drunk/drinking Argument End of relationship Psychosis Shot fired
All
Black
White
Female
404
94
310
77
51.9% 11.0% 4.5% 2.9% 9.0% 2.6% 3.2% 1.9% 27.4% 12.9% 7.4% 12.3% 9.0%
51.9% 14.3% 2.6% 3.9% 5.2% 6.5% 2.6% 1.3% 15.6% 13.0% 2.6% 23.4% 9.1%
****
46.5% 10.9% 5.2% 3.7% 6.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 23.8% 14.1% 6.2% 16.3% 8.2%
28.7% 10.6% 7.4% 6.4% 0.0%*** 6.4% 4.3% 7.4%* 9.6%*** 18.1% 2.1% 28.7%*** 6.4%
Male 327 45.3% 10.1% 5.8% 3.7% 7.3% 3.1% 3.7% 3.7% 25.1% 14.4% 7.0% 14.4% 8.3%
*p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.001, ***p ≤ 0.0001.
with family members (n = 12, 10.4%). In four instances (3.5%), an individual struck a significant other or family member. The remaining six cases comprised a variety of circumstances, including relationship problems, vague threats to family, and shooting at a wife. Two of the individuals from whom firearms were seized later died of suicide, one man the day after he shot himself and another when he committed suicide two months after his handguns were seized. Analysis of the subgroups of the circumstances of the firearm seizures by the demographic subgroups in the study population revealed few significant differences (see Table 3). When Black women and Black men were compared, the only significant difference was a higher prevalence of psychosis in Black women at the time of firearm seizure (44.4% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found in a comparison of White women and White men. No significant differences were found in a comparison of women and men. When Black individuals were compared with White individuals, though, three highly significant differences emerged. White individuals Table 3. Circumstances of firearm seizure by demographic groups
N Threat to kill self Held gun/knife to self Overdose/CO poisoning Shot self Verbal threat to kill Verbal threat to harm Verbal threat to shoot Pointed gun at person Drunk/drinking Argument End of relationship Psychosis Shot fired
All
Black female
Black male
White female
White male
404
27
67
50
260
46.5% 10.9% 5.2% 3.7% 6.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 23.8% 14.1% 6.2% 16.3% 8.2%
33.3% 18.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.8% 0.0% 44.4%* 7.4%
26.9% 7.5% 10.5% 9.0% 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 10.5% 13.4% 19.4% 3.0% 22.4% 4.5%
62.0% 12.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 24.0% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0% 10.0%
50.0% 10.8% 4.6% 2.3% 9.2% 1.9% 3.2% 1.9% 25.4% 13.1% 8.1% 12.3% 8.8%
*p < 0.05. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
317
were much more likely than Black individuals to have made a verbal threat to kill someone, as not one Black individual made such a threat (9.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0007). White individuals were also much more likely than Black individuals to be intoxicated with alcohol or to have been drinking at the time of the firearm seizure (27.4% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.0002). As noted earlier, Black individuals were much more likely than White individuals to be psychotic (28.7% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.0004). Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to have pointed a gun at someone during the incident (7.4% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.01). Shots were fired, though not at a person, in 33 (8.2%) of the incidents that led to firearm seizure. Most of the gunshots took place during incidents involving a threat of suicide (n = 21, 63.6%). Only four gunshots (19.0%) occurred where there was a risk of violence, but 12 incidents of gunshots were related to intoxication with alcohol (n = 10, 47.6%), with one incident each of cocaine and alprazolam use. Three gunshots (14.3%) were fired by individuals described as psychotic and, in two instances, an individual threatened others by firing his weapon. Police action at the time of firearm seizure fell into four categories (see Figure 3). Immediate detention, or involuntary transport of the individual to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation, was by far the most common police action at the time of the firearm seizure (74.3%, n = 300). Individuals agreed to go to the hospital voluntarily in 9.4% (n = 38) of the cases. The outcomes of these hospital evaluations were not available in the court records. In 13.9% (n = 56) of cases, the only action taken by police was the seizure of the weapons for safekeeping. Police arrested the individual from whom they seized a firearm in 7.9% (n = 32) of the incidents, often in conjunction with immediate detention (n = 19, 59.4%). White subjects were significantly more likely than Black subjects to be immediately detained (77.5% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.005), but Black subjects were significantly more likely than White subjects to agree to voluntary transport to the hospital (18.1% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between White and Black individuals with regard to arrest or safekeeping of firearms. Men were more likely than women to be arrested (9.2% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between men and women with regard to the remaining three categories of police action at the time of firearm seizure. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Immediate detention
Arrest
Voluntary transport
Safekeeping of weapon
2013
Figure 3. Police action at the time of firearm seizure in Marion County by year, 2006–2013. Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
318
G. F. Parker
Police seized an average of 2.7 (SD = 5.03) weapons per incident, although the median and mode, which were both 1.0, showed that a handful of cases skewed the average. Police seized 10 or more firearms in 17 incidents, all of which involved a White individual (16 men and one woman). In 14 of the 17 cases, the number of weapons seized was between 10 and 20, and the largest number of weapons involved in one incident was 82. Overall, Marion County police seized a total of 1,096 firearms using the firearm seizure law, consisting of 555 handguns and 525 long guns (rifles or shotguns); in two cases, in which a total of 16 firearms were seized, the categories of the weapons seized was not available. When long guns were seized, police took custody of significantly more long guns (n = 188 cases, mean = 2.8 long guns per incident, SD = 3.6) than in the 325 incidents when handguns were seized (n = 325 cases, mean = 1.7 handguns per incident, SD = 2.9, p = 0.0002). Police seized significantly more weapons per incident from White individuals (mean = 3.1, SD = 5.66) than from Black individuals (mean = 1.5, SD = 1.1, p = 0.007) and from men (mean = 3.0, SD = 5.5) than from women (mean = 1.4, SD = 1.3, p = 0.01). Women were significantly more likely to have only one weapon seized (n = 66, 85.7%) than men (n = 171, 52.3%, p = 0.0001). When a weapon was seized from a Black person, it was very likely to be a handgun (92.5%, n = 86), which was a significantly higher proportion than when a weapon was seized from a White person (77.1%, n = 239, p = 0.002). When a weapon was seized from a woman, the likelihood that it was a handgun was significantly higher than when a weapon was seized from a man (94.8% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.0002); however, men had significantly more handguns seized (mean = 1.8, SD = 3.2) per incident than women (1.1, SD = 0.5, p = 0.05). White individuals were significantly more likely than Black individuals (52.6% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.0001) and men were significantly more likely than women (55.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.0001) to have long guns seized. The petition to retain firearms seized by police under IC 35-47-14 was filed by the Marion County prosecutor a mean of 140.1 days (SD = 149.2) and a median of 86 days after the firearms were seized (range 8–943 days). The time to filing of the petition by the prosecutor decreased significantly over the last 3 years of the study period; between 2006 and 2010, the mean interval was 176.9 days (SD = 164.5), but it decreased to 88.0 days between 2011 and 2013 (SD = 105.9, p = 0.0001). The cases were resolved an average of 140.1 days (SD = 149.2) after the petition was filed (median = 86 days, range 8–943 days). After 2006, when this interval was a mean of 53.9 days, the time to initial resolution after the petition was filed averaged 149.3 days. Over the course of the study period, the resolution of the case occurred, on average, 284.1 days (SD = 217.5) after the seizure of the weapon, with a median of 224 days and a range of 25–1,418 days. Only one significant difference emerged when the length of the proceedings was studied by demographic group: the prosecutor took significantly longer to file petitions against Black individuals (mean = 178.3 days, SD = 195.5) than against White individuals (mean = 133.6 days, SD = 137.0, p = 0.01). The primary outcome of the court proceedings after a firearm was seized by police under Indiana Code 35-47-12 was court-ordered retention of the weapon by the police (62.6%, n = 253) (see Figure 4). In the first 3 years of implementation of the law, the court-ordered retention was based on two scenarios: either a finding by the court that the person was dangerous, which was accompanied by suspension of the person’s license to carry a handgun, or the failure of the defendant to appear for the hearing. In 2006, the court suspended the license to carry handguns in 35 of the 56 cases (62.5%) in which the individual was present for the hearing and in each of the 10 cases Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
319
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Retained by court
Destroyed by agreement
Case dismissed
Firearms transferred
2013
Failure to appear
Figure 4. The outcome of the initial court hearing of firearm seizure cases heard in Marion County by year, 2006–2013.
when the individual failed to appear. In 2007, the court suspended the license to carry handguns in six out of 29 cases (20.7%) when the defendant was present for the hearing and only three times out of 54 cases (5.6%) when the defendant failed to appear in court. In 2008, the court suspended the license to carry only three times, all in January, each time after a hearing, but only once when the weapons were retained by the court. For the remainder of the study, from February 2008 through 2013, the court did not suspend any licenses to carry handguns and ordered retention of firearms only when the defendant failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. Retention of the firearm by the court was the leading outcome in every year but one, often by a substantial margin (see Figure 4). Court retention of the seized firearms closely tracked the gun owner’s failure to appear in court for the retention hearing; indeed, after the first year (17.9%, n = 10), the frequency of failure to appear was very close, if not identical, to the frequency of court retention of the weapons. Dismissal of the case was a regular outcome of court proceedings after the first 2 years of the study, as the frequency of dismissal ranged from 23.8% to 61.4% of cases from 2008 to 2012. The seized weapons were transferred to another person in 5.7% (n = 23) of cases over the course of the study. The firearms were destroyed with the consent of the gun owner in 8.9% (n = 36) of cases. The court ordered the destruction of the weapons in an initial hearing only once, in 2007. The court ordered the suspension of the individual’s license to carry a firearm in 80.4% (n = 45) of the cases in 2006, but the frequency of this action dropped precipitously thereafter, to 10.8% (n = 9) of all cases heard in 2007, 5.2% (n = 3, all in January 2008) of all cases heard in 2008, and to 0.0% in all subsequent years. Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to have the court order retention of their firearms (68.1% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.0001) and to fail to appear in court (62.8% vs. 50.5%, p = 0.0001). Black individuals were also significantly more likely than White individuals to agree to the destruction of their weapons (13.8% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.01). Men were significantly more likely than women to have their case dismissed by the court (30.9% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.002). The Marion Superior Court held subsequent hearings on firearm seizure cases 111 times between 2007 and 2011. In 78 (72.1%) of these hearings, all of which took place 5 years after the initial court hearing, the individual failed to appear and the court Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
320
G. F. Parker
ordered the destruction of the weapons. In two cases that were originally heard in 2007, the individual failed to appear for a subsequent hearing, one in 2009 and one in 2010; these were set out for final hearing 5 years later. Another 27 cases (24.3%) were dismissed at the subsequent hearing, but in four of the dismissals (14.8%), all in 2007, the individuals agreed to destruction of their firearms, and in three dismissals (11.1%) the individuals agreed to transfer the weapons to another person. Two of the remaining four cases were settled by voluntary destruction of the weapons and two resulted in the scheduling of a 5-year follow-up hearing.
DISCUSSION The outcomes of the court cases in Marion County between 2006 and 2013 that involved Indiana’s firearm seizure statute showed that the law was used sparingly, as petitions for retention of seized firearms were filed an average of once a week over the course of the 8-year study period. In a city with over 330,000 households, in a state where about 39% of households own a firearm (Okora et al., 2005), the 404 cases in this study affected a very small fraction (~0.04%) of the gun-owning households in Marion County on an annual basis. It is difficult to say if the adoption of this law by Indianapolis police prevented the use of a firearm to commit suicide or injure someone. In each of the cases filed by prosecutors, the police had been called to a scene by the individual, a family member or friend, or a neighbor or witness of some sort, so some type of intervention was already likely to occur. Many Indianapolis police officers have completed Crisis Intervention Team training, so it is perhaps not surprising that the common police response in the situations that led to firearm seizure was transporting the person to a nearby hospital for evaluation, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Removal of the weapons at the time of transport surely simplified the task of the mental health professionals who then evaluated these individuals, as they no longer had to be concerned about access to weapons in the home, but it is impossible to say if the seizure had any material impact on the outcome of the evaluation. The demographics of the people from whom police seized weapons revealed some interesting patterns. White men were the largest demographic group by far in the study population (64%) and were disproportionately represented relative to the Marion County census results. However, White males are also the demographic group most likely to own firearms in the United States, according to a 2014 Pew Research Center report (Morin, 2014), which showed that 38% of men, 31% of women, 41% of White individuals, and 19% of Black individuals owned guns. The demographics of the study population were thus perhaps not as disproportionate as they might appear. Nonetheless, the pattern of police seizure suggests the presence of a racial bias in non-criminal seizure of weapons in the community. If the data were available, it would be interesting to compare the results of this study with the demographics of police seizures of illegal weapons in Marion County. Other suggestions of differences in firearm seizure based on race can be seen in the demographics of the circumstances of the seizures. Although a risk of suicide was the most common reason for firearm seizure, it was much more common in incidents involving White individuals than those involving Black individuals. Although there was no significant difference in the frequency of risk of violence as a reason for firearm seizure between Black and White individuals, Black individuals were significantly more Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
Circumstances and outcomes of a firearm seizure law
321
likely than White individuals to be psychotic at the time of seizure, while White individuals were significantly more likely to be intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. None of the Black individuals who had a firearm seized threatened to kill another person, which is potentially grounds for a charge of intimidation, in contrast to 9% of White individuals. However, Black individuals were more likely than White individuals to have a firearm seized after pointing a firearm at another person, which is also grounds for arrest. Overall, there was no significant difference in arrest based on race. Police were significantly more likely to immediately detain White individuals in incidents that led to firearm seizure, but Black individuals were significantly more likely to be transported voluntarily to the hospital; however, when these categories were combined, into all who were taken to the hospital by police, the difference was no longer significant (p = 0.2). Although it is not clear how these results fit into a pattern, they can be seen as an indication of who police view as dangerous. After the first year, the resolution in court of the firearm seizure cases settled into a pattern controlled by one major factor: whether the individual came to court for the court hearing on retention of the seized firearms. If the individual did not show up in court at the appointed date and time, the court typically retained the weapons and, after the passage of 5 years, ordered the destruction of the firearms. If the individual was present at either the initial hearing or any subsequent hearing, it was very likely that the case would be dismissed and the weapons would be returned. In 2006, the first year of hearings, the judge suspended the license to carry a handgun in 80% of the firearm seizure cases heard, which meant the state had met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person met Indiana statutory criteria for being dangerous. As the circumstances of police seizure of firearms in 2006 did not differ appreciably from the circumstances of the seizures in the years 2007–2013, it appears the frequent decision to dismiss a case was not made based on the strength of the case, but only on whether the individual appeared at the initial court hearing. The reason(s) for this change could not be determined from the available data. So, what do these results contribute to the national debate about gun violence? The right of an individual to own firearms is protected by the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). Federal background checks have focused on preventing “prohibited persons,” including felons and people with a history of civil commitment, from legally purchasing handguns, but it is clear that background checks do not prevent people from illegally purchasing weapons, which are widely available in the United States. In addition, background checks are unlikely to prevent mass shootings. As noted in the Introduction, the shooters in five recent high-profile multiple homicides either purchased their weapons legally or had access to legally purchased weapons. Given that guns are widely available across the U.S., and are likely to remain widely available, the public policy issue then becomes two-fold: how to identify people who are at high risk of violence and then how to decrease the risk of serious violence by removing firearms from those people. Connecticut, Indiana, New York, Texas, and California have each taken small steps towards this goal. Each state has chosen a different procedural route, but all of them provide a legal means of seizing legally owned firearms from people believed to be dangerous. In Connecticut and Indiana, the police make the determination of dangerousness; in New York, clinicians initiate the process based on dangerousness; in Texas, police may seize weapons in the context of serving a court order for involuntary psychiatric evaluation, which is often based on a danger to self or others; and in California, Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
322
G. F. Parker
relatives can make a request to the court based on their determination of dangerousness. The experience of Marion County, where Indiana’s firearm seizure law has been in use for 8 years, suggests that this approach, while conceptually appealing, has had a very modest impact. One firearm seizure per week in a large city is truly a drop in a large bucket of potentially dangerous people who may have access to guns. Nonetheless, it is heartening to consider that one or more of the 404 firearms seizures in Marion County over 8 years might have prevented a tragedy from occurring.
CONCLUSION Overall, the Indiana law functioned as intended on the streets, where it provided a legal means for police to seize firearms from people who appeared to them to present a risk of danger to self or others. If the person whose weapon was seized did not appear in court to seek the return of the weapon, it was retained and, ultimately, destroyed. If the individual did appear in court, the weapons were returned and the case was dismissed; in these cases, the Indiana law essentially provided for a cooling-off period lasting an average of 9 months.
REFERENCES District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US570 (2008). Freedman, D. (2013). Texas clarifies mental crisis gun policy. Houston Chronicle, October 18, 2013. Available at: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Texas-clarifies-mentalcrisis-guns-policy-4908331.php [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Morin, R. (2014). The demographics and politics of gun-owning households. Pew Research Center website, 7/15/14. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-ofgun-owning-households/ [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Norko, M., & Baranoski, M. (2014). Gun control legislation in Connecticut: effects on persons with mental illness. Connecticut Law Review, 46(4), 1609–1631. Okora, C. A., Nelson, D. E., Mercy, J. A., Balluz, L. S., Crosby, A. E., & Mokdad, A. H. (2005). Prevalence of household firearms and firearms storage practices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia: findings from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2002. Pediatrics, 116(3), e370–376. Parker, G. F. (2010). Application of a firearm seizure law aimed at dangerous persons: Outcomes from the first two years. Psychiatric Services, 61(5), 478–482. Rose, V., & Reilly, M. (2008). Gun Seizure Law. Report No. 2008-R-0280, Office of Legal Research, Connecticut General Assembly. Available at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0280.htm [Accessed on 17 March 2015]. Simpson, J. R. (2007). Bad risk? An overview of laws prohibiting possession of firearms by individuals with a history of treatment for mental illness. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(3), 330–338.
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Sci. Law 33: 308–322 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl
