NJ: “Red flag” petition denial reversed for lack of findings

Denial of red flag petition reversed for lack of findings. “The Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 (the Act), New Jersey’s ‘red flag law,’ empowers a court to remove firearms from a person who ‘poses a significant danger of bodily injury to … self or others’ by possessing them. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-24(b). In this case, the Law Division, after a plenary hearing, denied a law enforcement officer’s petition for a final extreme risk protective order (FERPO) that would have compelled D.L.B. to surrender her firearms. The State contends on appeal that it showed by a preponderance of the evidence that D.L.B. posed the requisite danger to self or others. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-24(b). Because the trial court did not admit critical evidence, did not require or ensure the State presented information and evidence upon which it relied in support of its petition, and did not make essential findings of fact, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.” In re D.L.B., 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 95 (July 14, 2021).*

New York’s state process for a motion to suppress is adequate for Stone v. Powell, and it’s up to a litigant to invoke it or not. Barksdale v. Crawley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129860 (W.D. N.Y. July 13, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.