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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT