Denial of red flag petition reversed for lack of findings. \u201cThe Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 (the Act), New Jersey’s \u2018red flag law,\u2019 empowers a court to remove firearms from a person who \u2018poses a significant danger of bodily injury to \u2026 self or others\u2019 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.\u201d In re D.L.B., 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 95 (July 14, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
New York\u2019s state process for a motion to suppress is adequate for Stone v. Powell, and it\u2019s 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).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Denial of red flag petition reversed for lack of findings. \u201cThe Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 (the Act), New Jersey’s \u2018red flag law,\u2019 empowers a court to remove firearms from a person who \u2018poses a significant danger of … Continue reading