Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement as ERPO Petitioners

This video series, created by Johns Hopkins University, is intended to be useful for law enforcement officers interested in how ERPO laws work in practice. This series provides perspectives from various individuals working across all levels of law enforcement and at different stages of the legal process.

Concluding Thoughts on Law Enforcement as Petitioners for ERPO from Dr. Shannon Frattaroli

ERPO Model Policies

When implemented well, ERPOs have shown to be life-saving measures across the country. Law enforcement at the state and local level require clear, detailed policies and protocols when serving ERPO orders and dispossessing firearms. Written ERPO policies and protocols which take into account both how individual jurisdictions operate as well as the unique, local landscape are crucial for successful ERPO implementation. Below are model policies designed by jurisdictions across the country to provide examples of the ERPO process for law enforcement from start to finish.

St. Petersburg, Florida Police Department Risk Protection Order (RPO) Instructional Order

Best Practices for Implementation

Work with Community Groups and Leaders

Municipal leadership, community groups, and other local stakeholders are critical for the successful implementation of ERPOs in their communities. Law enforcement should work with local leadership and community organizations in establishing working groups to develop a locally-appropriate implementation program. Social service providers, healthcare providers, mental health services, domestic violence advocacy groups, community violence intervention and violence interrupter programs, veteran groups, and more may have unique perspectives on how to connect individuals in crisis with the help they need. Educating and collaborating with key local stakeholders on ERPO implementation would create a more efficient ERPO filing process as well as potentially connect individuals in crisis with the appropriate resources. 

Dedicate ERPO Coordinators

Having staff specifically trained on ERPOs and oversee ERPO cases can be helpful in maintaining successful ERPO implementation in law enforcement agencies. ERPO specialists can operate in a variety of ways: serving as the agency’s main point of contact on ERPO matters, developing ERPO protocols, steward ERPO data, and more, in order to streamline the ERPO process and mitigate administrative burden on law enforcement officers. 

Support Civilian Petitioners

Most states allow for civilian petitioners, such as intimate partners, family or household members, and healthcare workers. In addition to establishing an ERPO coordinator to assist with any questions, public facing materials explaining what ERPOs are, what the petition process is like, and how to file a petition, should be easily accessible for potential petitioners. In some instances, family and household members may prefer to have minimal law enforcement involvement in the petition process. Readily accessible information and instructions would help those petitioners to understand the process and more confidently file an ERPO petition.

Identify Safe Gun Storage Options

Most state ERPO laws allow for multiple potential storage options for dispossessed firearms, such as with law enforcement, to a licensed firearms dealer, or with a qualified third party with the court’s approval. It is important to allow for multiple storage options for the respondent. Some respondents may not be comfortable with storing their weapons with law enforcement, and providing other options may reduce anxieties about turning in firearms. Additionally, some respondents served an ERPO, such as minors served ERPOs, live in homes where another person owns firearms as well. Coordinating with those third parties to ensure the safe storage of the respondent’s firearms–as well as the third party’s–may be necessary.

Employ Co-Responder Teams and Crisis Intervention Teams

Many ERPO orders are filed in cases where the respondent is in emotional or behavioral health crisis. A co-responder team, made up of a law enforcement officer and a mental health crisis worker or social worker, works together to serve ERPO orders and conduct firearm dispossession. Through their combined expertise, the team is better able to enhance crisis de-escalation and link respondents in crisis to appropriate services or provide other effective and efficient responses. For more information on co-responder teams, read this best practice guide on co-responder team models.

Jurisdictions may train existing crisis intervention teams on ERPO implementation. Crisis intervention teams are designated teams who are trained to respond to mental illness calls. Jurisdictions may also create a designated ERPO response unit for serving ERPO orders, dispossessing firearms, and holding accountable those who do not comply with the ERPO. King County, Washington employs a Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit, which is specifically designated to implement ERPO orders and proactively prevent and reduce harm.

Coordinate with Respondent’s Support Network 

Typically, even if a civilian files the ERPO petition, law enforcement is required to serve the order and conduct firearm dispossession. Officers should coordinate with the respondent’s support network if possible to develop a plan for safe service and dispossession. Considerations for safe service and dispossession include having the petitioner or other loved ones present during the process, what the respondent’s attitude toward law enforcement is, what the respondent’s daily schedule is, and what the respondent’s behavioral state may be. Information about the respondent’s day-to-day lifestyle and mental state can be beneficial for officers to develop a service and dispossession plan that lessens risk. Engaging with the respondent’s support network may also be a key opportunity to inform them of crisis and long-term help resources which may be available to the respondent. 

Utilize Detectives for Service

When serving an ERPO, consider utilizing detectives as the main law enforcement official conducting the service. Regardless of the respondent’s attitude toward law enforcement, officers in uniform may be seen as intimidating by the respondent and may elevate risk. Additionally, it may be stigmatizing or criminalizing for the respondent to engage with uniformed officers in this context. Detectives, or other officers in civilian clothes, mitigate the risk for escalation or stigmatization by removing those visual indicators of law enforcement presence. 

The content of this website is not legal advice and is only intended for general informational purposes. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney.