As guns are seized, legal issues arise

Critics say state lawmakers didn’t see potential pitfalls

Florida’s newest tool to prevent mass shootings — empowering police to seize guns from people deemed to be dangerous — could pose serious legal challenges that are likely to be debated for years.

Nine cases have already been filed in Broward County under a new state law that allows police to seek court orders to take guns when people are considered a threat to themselves or others.

Gov. Rick Scott signed the law March 9 in reaction to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Records show the gunman, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, had come to the attention of authorities multiple times, but

was never forced to give up his guns.

It’s too early to say how many times the new law has been used statewide, but several cases have come to light.

Possibly the first case in the state targeted a Lighthouse Point man who said one of his neighbors was a shape-shifter who sometimes looked like Osama bin Laden. That order was made final Wednesday.

The second was aimed at Zachary Cruz, brother of the Stoneman Douglas shooter. Zachary Cruz, 18, was arrested March 19 on a trespassing charge at Stoneman Douglas. The Broward Sheriff’s Office sought the order the same day.

In Orlando, an order was filed March 21 against Chris Velasquez, a University of Central Florida student who reportedly told police he was one life-altering event away from opening fire on a school.

Broward’s chief administrative judge, Circuit Judge Jack Tuter, says the new law comes with potential legal pitfalls that lawmakers apparently did not anticipate. Among the questions:

■ What can police do about weapons in the home that are not owned by the subject of the order?

■ How can the judicial system balance the privacy of minors with the open nature of the orders?

■ Who is responsible for monitoring the subject?

■ What happens if the subject wants to turn his or her weapons over to a responsible third party instead of to police?

That last question is answered in the law, with a large loophole, Tuter told a gathering of high-ranking law enforcement officials on March 22.

Police must allow the transfer of weapons to a third party as long as that person passes a background check. But the law doesn’t fund the background check, nor does it specify who is supposed to conduct it.

“You’re going to have to figure that out,” Tuter told the law enforcement brass.

Fort Lauderdale attorney Michael Styles, who was not at the meeting, agreed with Tuter about the likelihood of legal challenges.

“This law was a kneejerk reaction to a bad situation,” he said. “We have enough gun laws on the books.

“This one was not well thought out.”

Styles went further than Tuter, predicting that the parts of the law, such as the seizure of weapons that don’t belong to the subject of the order, would not survive a constitutional challenge.

Tuter said the case of Zachary Cruz easily could have raised a number of questions. Cruz lives in Palm Beach County, but the order was sought in Broward. He does not live alone, and there was no way to tell whether anyone else in his home owned a weapon.

As it turned out, there were no weapons, so officials were never confronted with the need to answer the questions.

That won’t always happen, Tuter said. Police and the courts need to be ready for conflicts that arise.

“What if the gun in the home belongs to someone else?” Tuter asked.

The answer, in the law, is that the owner of the weapon must agree to store it where the subject of the order can’t access it. If they don’t, the guns must be turned over.

“I think it would be risky to leave those weapons behind,” Tuter said. But expect legal challenges from gun owners whose weapons are confiscated even though they have done nothing wrong, he said.

Lawmakers also failed to consider the privacy issues surrounding juveniles — minors could have access to weapons at home, but they are typically not identified in public court documents unless they are charged with crimes as adults.

Risk protection orders are civil motions, so juveniles should not be identified, Tuter said. But failing to identify them would defeat the purpose of the orders and make then impossible to execute.

“We are in uncharted territory, with kids making threats over the internet,” Tuter said. “I think if you threaten somebody, you’ve surrendered your right to privacy. … Where that goes, higher courts than me will have to determine.”

Police officials said the meeting with Tuter helped them realize some of the challenges ahead.

“It looks like we’re going to have to come up with some guidelines here,” said Margate Police Chief Dana Watson. “We’re on new ground now.”

“This law was a knee-jerk reaction to a bad situation. We have enough gun laws on the books.” Attorney Michael Styles