ILNews

Gun seizure case presents first impression issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man whose 51 guns were ordered seized by a judge who determined him dangerous after his behavior alarmed Bloomington police near the site where missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer was last seen is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to return his firearms.

The transfer petition filed Sept. 5 by Carmel attorney Guy Relford argues state laws allowing the taking of firearms from people deemed “dangerous” are unconstitutionally vague and that the law as applied to his client, Robert Redington of Indianapolis, is unconstitutional and wasn’t sufficiently supported by evidence.

IL_Guns08-15col.jpg Carmel attorney and firearms training expert Guy Relford has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer of a case in which a man’s guns were seized without an arrest.(IL file photo)

Redington was never charged, and he was released after three days of observation by mental health professionals “on the specific conclusion that he was not a danger to himself or others,” the petition claims.

“Only individuals who pose an imminent risk to themselves or others should be subject to the seizure and confiscation of their firearms,” the petition argues. “Lawful and sane Indiana residents should not be subject to those penalties based only upon the speculation and conjecture of persons untrained in mental health – such as law enforcement officials – and unsupported by competent expert testimony.”

The brief says Redington, 56, has no criminal history and has held the same job for 35 years. “Yet despite the fact that Redington has never been arrested or convicted of any crime and his property has never been used in a crime, his property has nonetheless been seized by the State without any compensation to Redington whatsoever. … It is therefore clear that the Act violates Article 1, §21 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as applied to Redington.”

The case presents a matter of first impression: Who may be considered dangerous enough under state law to have weapons taken from them without being criminally charged.

That question resulted in a split 48-page opinion last month from the Indiana Court of Appeals which affirmed a trial court order and the subsequent confiscation of firearms from Redington’s home. Three judges wrote three opinions, but two upheld Monroe Circuit Judge Mary Ellen Diekhoff’s order to search Redington’s home and confiscate weapons after she determined he was “dangerous” under I.C. § 35-47-14-1(a)(2)(B).

The state believes the Court of Appeals got it right.

“Mindful of the right to bear arms, the Legislature passed a statute to address situations with armed mentally disturbed individuals posing danger to others; and we agreed with the Court of Appeals decision that the statute is constitutional and that the trial court judge properly applied the law in this circumstance,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. “We contend the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.”

Bloomington police detained Redington on Aug. 4, 2012, after encountering him in a parking garage near Kilroy’s Sports Bar just off the IU campus. He had been scoping out the location with a range-finder, and his behavior was erratic, according to police. He told far-fetched stories of having met Spierer, and he asked police about their proficiency shooting at long distances. Redington also later told authorities he’d seen spirits, among other things, that prompted police to detain him on the belief that he was delusional.

Detectives took Redington to IU Health Hospital in Bloomington, where a doctor said Redington suffered from “a type of personality disorder called schizotypal,” and perhaps a paranoid or delusional disorder. A registered nurse assigned to Redington said he “‘appeared delusional, grandiose, and ... religiously preoccupied,’ in that he appeared to be experiencing ‘a break with . . . reality’ and that he claimed ‘he would know things that would happen beforehand,’” according to the prevailing COA opinion written by Judge Elaine Brown and joined with a concurring opinion by Judge Cale Bradford.

Redington was legally carrying two handguns that were seized, along with a shotgun found in the trunk of his car. During the period of his psychological evaluation, the search of his home ordered by Diekhoff turned up another 48 firearms and ammunition that were seized, and Redington’s license to carry a handgun also was suspended.

“This case appears to be an issue of first impression, and, as recent events nationwide have demonstrated, poses a question of great public interest,” Brown wrote. “We find that Redington continuing to own firearms threatens to inflict ‘particularized harm’ analogous to tortious injury on readily identifiable private interests.”

But Relford’s brief cites Judge Patricia Riley, who wrote in dissent that the state failed to meet its burden showing a person is dangerous if he “presents an imminent risk of personal injury” to himself or another. She noted that the psychologist who examined Redington after his involuntary commitment testified that he was released when it was determined he didn’t pose an imminent danger.

“The State provided no further probative evidence establishing otherwise,” Riley wrote. “I would therefore reverse the trial court.”  

The brief seeking transfer also refers to popular culture to argue that the government has no legitimate interest in depriving law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights based on the possibility of a future risk.

“Indeed, the State’s application of the Act to Redington is eerily reminiscent of the movie ‘Minority Report,’” the brief argues, citing the science-fiction film’s cautionary tale of a “department of pre-crime” in which future criminals are arrested and punished before offending.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT