Circumstances and Outcomes of a Firearm Seizure Law: Marion County, Indiana, 2006–2013

Abstract

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.

Use of extreme risk protection orders to reduce gun violence in Oregon

“…Research on ERPOs in other states did not find such a high co-occurrence of suicide and violence against others risk. Nine percent of cases in a Connecticut study (Swanson et al, 2017) and 6% of cases in an Indiana study (Parker, 2015) listed both risk of suicidality and risk of harm to others. Estimates of the proportion of respondents with overlapping risk in King County, Washington (Frattaroli et al, 2020), and statewide in Washington (Rowhani-Rahbar et al, 2020) was somewhat higher at 33-35%.…”

“…Some of these differences are explained by the small percentage of cases in Connecticut and Indiana that indicated a risk of violence to others. Risk of harm to others was listed as a concern in only 32% of cases in Connecticut (Swanson et al, 2017) and only 21% of cases in Indiana (Parker, 2015). In Oregon, 75% percent of cases indicated a history of violence against others.…”

A policy analysis of the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act : a multiple streams approach to Extreme Risk Protection Orders

“…With respect to effectiveness of firearm dispossession laws, both the literature and the findings suggest these laws are effective ways to prevent those who are at risk from harming themselves or others. As previously noted, the first two states with firearm removal laws -Connecticut and Indiana -found a decrease in suicide deaths after passage of their laws (Parker, 2015;Swanson et al, 2017). Two studies in the literature interview front line key informants in law enforcement and prosecutors (Swanson et al, 2017(Swanson et al, , 2019 and these interviews noted the benefits of the law and the need for training of law enforcement.…”

“…Indiana have reduced suicide deaths in these states (Kivisto & Phalen, 2018;Parker, 2015;Swanson et al, 2017Swanson et al, , 2019. While it is too soon to determine whether the FRO has decreased suicide deaths in Illinois, participants echo the literature in that the law has the ability to prevent suicides.…”

“…He continues to argue that the law in Indiana is primarily used for those at risk for suicide and those who petition for the return of their firearms usually get them back (Parker, 2015). Parker also argues that more of the firearm seizures were due to domestic violence and other domestic disturbances than in the first two years of the implementation (Parker, 2015). Parker comes to the same conclusion as the previous study that this law is underutilized, but when it is used, there is a "cooling off period lasting an average of 9 months" (Parker, 2015, p. 322).…”