Connecticut passed its “red flag” law in 1998, to keep guns out of the hands of people who may be a risk to themselves or others. Twenty-five years later, a CT Mirror investigation has revealed that the use of the law varies by municipality.
WSHU’s Ebong Udoma spoke with CT Mirror’s Dave Altimari to discuss his article written with José Luis Martínez, “CT ‘red flag’ law is being applied unevenly, analysis shows,” as part of the collaborative podcast Long Story Short.
WSHU: Hello, Dave. You and fellow Connecticut Mirror reporter José Luis Martínez have done quite a comprehensive analysis of the uneven application of Connecticut's "red flag" law. What is a red flag law, to start off with?
DA: First, I want to say that this was a project that we did with a University of Connecticut journalism class. There were 12 students in the class who frankly did all a lot of the legwork here.
Connecticut was one of the first states that passed what is called a ‘red flag’ law, where if police believe you have weapons and are a threat to yourself or others, they can get a court order to seize those weapons and make you appear in court. Connecticut passed this law in 1998 after the lottery shooting, and it's been updated twice since then.
And so for years, I've been wanting to take a look at our law because it is nationally acclaimed, as you know, one of the best, to see how it worked and who was using it. So this was a good project to do with a group of students who could do a lot of the leg work.
WSHU: To illustrate how it's been applied, you highlight the case of Michael Mollow in Branford. Tell us what happened there.
DA: So Michael Mollow was a dentist who was dating a younger woman, Caroline Ashworth, in August of 2022. She called 911 to tell police that he had threatened to kill her, to shoot her in the head. Police responded and they didn't arrest anybody. They didn't get what's called an emergency risk protection order. A few days later, Mollow actually voluntarily checked himself into Midstate Hospital in Meriden and told the staff there that he had homicidal ideations towards his girlfriend that he was fighting with, and that he had access to weapons in his home.
Under the law, Midstate did what it was required to do. It notified the Branford police that he was there and that he had made threats, and that he said that he had guns. So that was a second opportunity that Branford had to get an emergency risk protection order. All they would have to do at that point is check the state police gun permit database to see that he did indeed have, I believe it was 20 guns registered. And you know, they could have gotten a warrant out of court and easily seized his guns at that time, but they did not.
WSHU: And a couple of weeks later, he killed himself and his girlfriend.
DA: He was released from a psychiatric facility early and, in 36 hours, tracked Caroline Ashworth down and murdered her.
WSHU: Now, the law was meant to prevent these types of situations. And here's an example of a police department having that information but not following through. Is that common? The analysis you made? Because I see a discrepancy between Bridgeport, for instance, that has no record of police using this law. And I believe Meriden has used it quite a bit. What's responsible for that?
DA: The legislature changed the law twice in the last few years. And what, in effect, it did is make it easier for police to get these RPOs. The initial intent of the law was that if you knew or believed someone had weapons, you would get this, in effect, a search warrant to seize those weapons. The first change in 2021, if police responded to a home and someone was threatening to kill themselves or had made suicide threats, they could now get an RPO even if they didn't think you had any guns and make you go to court and appear before a judge. And your name would be put into the gun database so that you couldn't get a gun while that case was pending. So it made it more of a way to help people who are suicidal and to ensure that they didn't get guns. What happened is the number of RPOs went through the roof. After that law was passed, the numbers from 2021 to 2023 tripled.
WSHU: And one of the places it's gone up is on the campus of the University of Connecticut. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
DA: Yes, there is a significant disparity in how departments are using it. You mentioned Bridgeport in 2023 had no RPOs issued, no risk protection orders. Meridian, on the other hand, issued over 200. Branford ironically, after Caroline Ashworth was murdered, issued 139, which is the second most of any department in the state. What we found with UConnis that the department, anytime they get a call of a student who has threatened suicide or feels suicidal, they were getting RPOs. And they had issued over 40 RPOs in an 18-month period. Compared to all the other colleges in the state, about 10 total. So UConn is clearly using it.
And they have used it as a tool to deal with potentially suicidal students. Mental health is a big issue on college campuses, certainly post-COVID. And so they were getting all these orders, which basically then means the student has to appear in Rockville court, 14 days or so after the order is issued. And in every single case but one, the judge dismissed the RPO because the students were all under 21. So they don't have any guns. But for the department, the department's response to that was it's a tool we use when we know that someone is potentially suicidal; it puts them in the system. It also puts them on the radar of the different mental health services that are available on campus. So, it's worth the effort for us to use this as a way to try to curb potential suicide situations.
WSHU: Well, you know, Michael Lawlor, who was one of the architects of this law when it was implemented back in the late 90s, seems to have a concern about some of the recent changes to the law that he says are unnecessary. Could you just tell us what his take is on this?
DA: I think his fear is that now, potentially, Second Amendment advocates could challenge it in court and say that it's gone well past what it was supposed to be. Using his words, it was supposed to be a last resort for police to try to take someone's guns away if nothing else was available. And they knew the person had guns, they could go to court, get this warrant, do a seizure warrant and take the person's guns.
Because at the beginning, you have to remember when this law was passed, it was in response to the mass shooting at the lottery, where the shooter was a disgruntled employee of the lottery. And people knew it, but no one did anything about it. And they knew he had access to guns from his parents, and there was nothing that they did or could have done at the time. So this law was first passed to give police an option in a situation like that. So I think Mike's concern now is that we've gone so far and used it and the increase has been so large that we are now potentially opening up a second amendment issue.
WSHU: Now, is there any move to try to fix that?
DA: They did make some changes in 2022. But those were mostly cosmetic. There is now a part of the law that says you don't have to issue an RPO if the person is ineligible to get a gun permit in Connecticut. So, in other words, for anyone under 21, you really shouldn't issue an RPO. Yet UConn has still been doing that. And they changed some of the mechanisms of how it works. Initially, there were supposed to be two police officers who had to apply for the warrants. Now it's only one because some small departments were complaining that it was a drain on manpower. And it's also a drain for the judicial department because you have to have a judge on call, you know, in effect, 24 hours a day to be available to sign one of these. Also, the case has come to court, and there are hearings, and you have to have a judge to handle all the hearings. There were over 2,200, I believe, RPOs issued in 2023. And we're on pace for at least that many this year. And that number is three times more than it was just a couple of years ago.
WSHU: But Steven Stafstrom, who's the chair of the Judiciary Committee, says there are no bills dealing with red flag this year.
DA: Frankly, I'm curious to see what happens next year. I mean, the session is just about over now and you know, this story is just popping right now. Whether there'll be some discussion of whether the law has gone a little bit too far next year, or if we have a challenge to it some kind of a second amendment challenge.
