The Rule of Anaheim Police Department v. Crockett is that a gun violence restraining order may be issued against a firearm owner who fails to adequately secure weapons from a prohibited person who poses a credible threat of violence, under circumstances where the firearm owner enables access to weapons by someone with a documented mental health history and lifetime firearms prohibition who has made specific threats of mass violence.
Appeal from order granting gun violence restraining order in Superior Court, Orange County.
Defendant Appellant was John Adams Crockett, Jr. — the registered firearm owner whose adult son with mental health issues and a lifetime firearms ban made credible threats to commit a school shooting while living in Crockett's home.
Plaintiff Respondent was Anaheim Police Department — the law enforcement agency that sought the gun violence restraining order to prevent potential mass violence.
The suit sounded in public safety and firearm regulation under Penal Code section 18175. No cross-claims are mentioned.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Crockett's adult son Tyler, who lived with him, sent text messages threatening a mass shooting at Savanna High School. Tyler had a lifetime firearms prohibition due to three involuntary mental health holds, suffered from PTSD and depression, and had previously attempted suicide. Crockett owned multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition but failed to adequately secure them from Tyler, allowing Tyler to participate in shooting competitions and use firearms at ranges despite his prohibition, and left a key fob to a wall-mounted gun safe on the mantel beneath the safe.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted a three-year gun violence restraining order, ruling that Crockett posed a significant danger of causing personal injury to others by failing to properly secure his firearms from his son who had made credible threats of school violence and was prohibited from possessing firearms.
The key questions on Appeal: 1) Whether substantial evidence supported the GVRO; 2) Whether the trial court properly interpreted "causing" in section 18175 and whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague; 3) Whether the court adequately considered less restrictive alternatives; 4) Whether application of section 18175 violated Crockett's Second Amendment rights; 5) Whether section 18175 is overbroad; 6) Whether the court improperly relied on hearsay evidence.
The Appellate Court held that a gun violence restraining order was properly issued against a firearm owner who failed to adequately secure weapons from a prohibited person living in his home who posed a credible threat of mass violence, where the evidence showed inadequate security measures and the firearm owner's conduct enabled potential access to weapons by the prohibited person.
The case is inapplicable when the person subject to the firearms prohibition does not live with or have regular access to the firearm owner's weapons, when there are no credible specific threats of violence, when the firearm owner has no knowledge of mental health prohibitions, or when adequate security measures have been consistently maintained.
The case leaves open questions regarding what specific security measures would be deemed adequate to prevent access by prohibited persons, the scope of causation required for indirect enabling of potential violence, and the application of GVROs in cases involving less specific or credible threats.
Counsel
For Appellant: The Law Offices of John D. Rogers, John D. Rogers; The Law Offices of Jonathan Reza, Jonathan K. Reza
For Respondent: Robert Fabela, City Attorney; Sunny Huynh, Deputy City Attorney