Tate student's AR-15, father's 54 guns removed under new red flag law

Emma Kennedy | Pensacola News Journal

Show Caption Hide Caption How to make children safer from gun violence Gun violence and its effect on children is a major concern, especially after the deaths of 17 students and adults in a shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018.

Escambia County authorities have sought risk protection orders to confiscate firearms from two residents since Florida's "red flag law" came into effect earlier this year in response to the Parkland shooting.

The two petitions were both sought the same day — May 22 — in two separate cases. One was against a Tate High School student who had an AR-15 and was reportedly stalking his ex, and the other was against a father accused of having a history of unsafe gun storage and mental health issues following the accidental shooting death of his teenage son.

Risk protection orders allow law enforcement officers to petition a judge who can then decide whether the subject is a risk to themselves or others at a level that warrants temporarily confiscating their weapons.

Gov. Rick Scott signed the measure into law March 9, less than a month after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, killing 17 students and faculty.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office is the only law enforcement agency that has filed any risk protection petitions in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties since the law went into effect.

Tate student accused of stalking

The first case involved a juvenile who, at the time, was a Tate High student. Two school resource officers submitted sworn affidavits to Circuit Judge Thomas Dannheisser urging for an order to be put in place to remove an AR-15 hanging in the boy's bedroom.

Court documents do not give the boy's name or age, but one SRO wrote that another Tate student told him that her boyfriend of three weeks was stalking her after she broke up with him. She said he was stopping her in the halls, repeatedly contacting her via social media and, at one time, he allegedly attempted to punch a boy who was seen with her.

Three days before the order was signed, the boy allegedly threatened to post naked photos of the girl on social media if she didn’t get back together with him and said he would kill himself if she didn't return to him.

The girl also said her ex-boyfriend posted photos of the AR-15 and a bullet on social media.

The girl's mother said she didn’t want to press charges but wanted the behavior documented.

The deputies took the boy to the Lakeview Center on May 22 under the Baker Act, which allows law enforcement to involuntarily hold a subject for up to 72 hours if they are an immediate danger to themselves or others. When the boy's mother arrived at Lakeview to take her son home, she reportedly said she was "glad she won’t have to come home and wonder if her son was dead."

In a court hearing three days later, the boy’s mom said all firearms had been removed from the home and wouldn't be returned until the court allows.

Father's weapons removed due to mental health concern

In the second case, the ECSO removed more than 50 firearms from a man whose teenage son had been killed accidentally in their home.

The 42-year-old father had been experiencing substance abuse and mental health issues since the death of his 18-year-old son in November 2016, according to court documents.

The father told police his son and a 17-year-old friend were in his son's bedroom when he heard a gunshot. He said he jumped up from his chair and ran into the room, but as he opened the door, he heard a second gunshot. He found both boys had been shot in the face.

He told police he ran to his son and held him, but he already knew he was dead. The man then called 911 and grabbed the son's friend. He later told police the surviving boy was trying to kill himself and repeatedly made statements including “I don’t deserve to live.”

The 17-year-old friend faced a manslaughter charge in the death, but he himself died before the case was resolved.

The father's risk protection order documents cite his son’s death and a divorce as a catalyst for post-traumatic stress and anxiety. Both he and his still-living son, a 14-year-old, allegedly have violence and mental health issues that have caused concern to police.

The father also faced manslaughter charges in his son’s death due to accusations he had improperly stored and secured firearms in the home, but those charges were not prosecuted.

ECSO confiscated 54 weapons at the time the order was filed in May, and Dannheisser later denied a request for a longer period of confiscation after two hearings when he determined the man wasn't a significant risk to himself or others. The man's weapons have since been returned to him.

ECSO representatives did not respond to the News Journal's request for comment on the effectiveness of the risk protection orders.

More: Parkland students bringing 'Road to Change' tour to Pensacola in July

How judges make the decision

Chief Judge Linda Nobles assigned Dannheisser as the area judge to hear all red flag law cases, which are filed under mental health court. She said she believes having one judge hear all the cases provides consistency and a greater understanding of the law circuit-wide.

Dannheisser said while risk protection orders are a good tool for law enforcement officers who see an imminent danger to someone or the public, it's not the first measure of its kind that gives the judicial system the power to restrict weapons.

"There are a lot of other injunctions that can take the place of it," Dannheisser said. "Already for years in domestic violence injunctions, the surrendering firearm provision was automatic, in stalking injunctions it was automatic."

He said the standard to grant the risk protection order and restrict firearms access beyond the court hearing date is high. There needs to be “clear and convincing” evidence that someone poses a threat, and much of that decision is left to the judge.

"The statute lays out criteria, but in general, the evidence is whether the facts establish that the individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or others with a firearm," Dannheisser said. "The legislation lists some criteria to consider but that’s not exclusive."

He said factors such as prior acts of violence, substance abuse and mental health are examples of what could play into the judge’s decision.

Once a petition is filed, the judge either grants an ex-parte risk protection order — which orders the surrender of firearms from the date of the petition until the judge can hold a hearing — or schedules a court date to hear the arguments within 14 days.

If the order is ultimately granted at a final hearing, the judge can keep the restrictions in place for up to a year. Authorities can seek further orders once that year is complete, or the subject of the order can petition the court to drop the order once in that year period.

“It seems to be a well-structured system that protects the right of the individual, and protects the public,” Dannheisser said.

Emma Kennedy can be reached at ekennedy@pnj.com or 850-435-8680.