REDinFL wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:22 am
You may be right, but they could address the provisions which allow it to be weaponized by people with a grudge, for example. Accountability for false reports would be a start. Some basic standards should be next. Right now, some County Sheriffs will investigate before applying for the warrant, others haven't indicated what they will do, some implying "taking action."
Another thing they can do is allow for "alternative temporary storage" of the subject's property, or allow the subject to arrange for it. The greatest concern about ERPOs for me is that LE can arrive at your door, confiscate your "inventory" in the name of the ERPO, and not even tell you where they're taking it or what they're doing with it. Perhaps, they may not give you any documentation as to what they took. You may be cleared, eventually, but try and go get your property back. It may take weeks, or months, maybe even years "if" you ever do get it back.
The problem with ERPOs in their current form is that they facilitate a nasty little "underlying agenda" of LE - "Get Guns off the streets." And, once off the streets, why allow them to be let back on the streets? Why, when they can be sold and yield revenue for the LEA? Now, I'm not saying that all LEAs act this way. But there are enough of them that do, especially where I used to live up in the PRNJ. Maybe there are some rules in FL that require accountability for the "temporarily seized" property, but I don't know.
What I'd prefer is that the law allow the subject to store their inventory "temporarily" while the hearing process completes. In fact, I'd have a facility with storage lockers that have two lock ports on them.... One for the subject, and the other for the county/state authority that got the petition. They both put their own lock on the locker so that neither has access to it while the hearing process plays out. Once the process is complete, the party that doesn't prevail has to take their lock off first. We could even have some of those "Metro Storage" locker buildings that have these special lockers.
As for the accusation itself, and the time spent going through the process to be resolved, that doesn't concern me as much as what happens to my property and how I get it all back "in tact." I can always attempt to sue the party that filed the initial complaint for damages. Maybe they could alter the law to make that a bit easier, especially if that initial complainant resides "out of state."
So, if we are to have ERPOs, then make alterations as per the above, and we'll see how it works out.
And, after that, we have to work on quashing "Civil Asset Forfeiture." And for the same reasons as the above. Way too much of an incentive by LEAs for "revenue enhancement."