Petition

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 29, 2021

OLOOONGCD-POON-K NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem-hmm-‘DLDmNOU‘I-PWNA Electronically Filed NORA FRIMANN, City Attorney (#93249) 3V Swag C°uré°f CA’ ARDELL JOHNSON, Assistant City Attorney (#95340) °""ty ° anfa 'a’a’ AARON YU, Deputy City Attorney (#304882) an 3./29l2d0231 _4iv1|5VPM Office of the City Attorney Cev'eg; CV?“ 42‘5‘ 200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor ase _ San José, California 951 13-1905 E“V9'°pe' 6132219 Telephone Number: (408) 535-1900 Facsimile Number: (408) 998-3131 E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanioseca.qov Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 21CV381425 CITY 0F SAN JOSE, a municipal Case Number: corporatlon’ PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF . . WEAPON Petitioner, V' Exempt from Filing Fees Gov’t. Code § 6103 ANTHONY LAWRENCE LEE, Respondent. STATEMENT OF FACTS On February 28, 2021 at approximately 4:40 p.m., officers from the San José Police Department responded to conduct a welfare check at a hotel in San José, California on a report of a man who was making threats to shoot someone, and then shoot himself. Officers contacted the Reporting Party who was an emergency case worker for Home First, who directed them to the hotel manager that heard Anthony Lawrence Lee (hereinafter “Respondent”) make the threats. Officers contacted the hotel manager who was on duty when she spoke with Respondent earlier that day. The hotel manager told officers that Respondent told her he was going to shoot someone and then he was going 1 PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF WEAPON Case Number: 1804896 O©OON®U1-POOI\J-\ NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem-POONAOCOmNmU'I-POONA to shoot himself. Officers contacted Respondent near his hotel room. Respondent informed officers that he did have thoughts of hurting himself and had thoughts of hurting other people. Respondent stated that if he shot someone, that he would obviously shoot himself because he would not be going to jail. Respondent told officers that the subject he wished harm upon lived “far away” and when officers asked him to elaborate Respondent stated, “approximately 25 miles.” Officers asked Respondent if he possessed any firearms and he admitted to owning a .45 caliber pistol. Respondent initially would not disclose where the firearm was located, but he stated it was approximately three miles away. In speaking with Respondent, it was later determined that the person Respondent was thinking of shooting was his ex-wife’s current husband. Respondent also stated that if his ex-girlfriend finds out where he lives that he would be forced to kill her. Respondent later disclosed to officers that he possessed a storage locker and consented to a search of his storage locker for firearms or ammunitions. Respondent signed a consent to search form. Officers transported the suspect to the storage locker and conducted a consent search of Respondents storage locker. Officers located a Ruger .357 magnum handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition. Officers seized the ammunition and firearm. Based on the Respondents behavior and statements, it was determined that Respondent was a danger to himself and others. Officers applied for a Gun Violence Restraining Order and it was granted. He was placed on 72-hour hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 5150. He was then transported to Emergency Psychiatric Services at Valley Medical Center for a psychological evaluation. During a protective sweep of Respondent’s storage locker, officers confiscated one firearm (“WEAPON”) and ammunition, all of which are described as follows: 1. Ruger .357 caliber revolver (serial no. 17793222); 2. Six .357 caliber rounds (tag no. SJ332591-1); and, 3. Silver gun case with paperwork (tag no. SJ332591-3). 2 PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF WEAPON Case Number: 1804896 O©OON®U1-POOI\J-\ NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem-POONAOCOmNmU'I-POONA The aforementioned WEAPON and ammunition were booked into San José Police Department Central Supply for safekeeping. ARGUMENT The City of San José (“City”) petitions the Court to order that the San José Police Department retain possession of the WEAPON police officers seized from Respondent and to order the WEAPON forfeited pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8102 and 8103. Section 8102 requires state law enforcement agencies to confiscate a firearm or deadly weapon from any person who officials have “detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition.” (See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8102(a).) Section 8102 authorizes the law enforcement agency that confiscates the weapon to petition the court “for a hearing to determine whether” return of the weapon “would be likely to result in endangering the person or others.” (Id. at § 8102(0).) If after such a hearing (or after default by Respondent) the Court finds that return of the WEAPON would indeed pose a risk of harm to Respondent or others, the Court must issue an order authorizing the law enforcement agency to destroy the weapons within 180 days from the date of the Court’s determination. (Id. at § 8102(h).) Section 8103 prohibits any person who has been forcibly admitted to a mental health facility under Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5150-5152 (concerning people who are a danger to themselves or others) from possessing any firearm for a period of five years. (See id. at § 8103(f).) A person subject to the prohibition of Section 8103 may make a single request for a hearing at any time during the five-year period. (See id.) At the hearing, the people have the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person would not be likely to use the firearm safely and lawfully. (See id.) Section 8102 incorporates Section 8103, meaning that a law enforcement agency that has confiscated a person’s weapons based on his mental condition may also rely on Section 8103 in petitioning the Court for forfeiture of the weapon. (See Id. at § 8102(a).) If the agency establishes that the person was admitted to a mental health facility as outlined 3 PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF WEAPON Case Number: 1804896 O©OON®U1-POOI\J-\ NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem-POONAOCOmNmU'I-POONA in Section 8103, it need not establish separately (and the Court need not separately find) that return of the weapon would likely result in “endangering the person or others”- Section 8103 establishes that fact categorically for a period of five years. (See Id. at § 8103(f).) The City (as the relevant “law enforcement agency” here) requests that the Court order Respondent’s WEAPON forfeited because his suicide threat and related contact with San José police officers on February 28, 2021, demonstrates that he is a danger to himself and others. Return of Respondent’s WEAPON would, therefore, “be likely to result in endangering [Respondent] or others” within the meaning of Section 8102.1 The City cannot yet confirm whether Respondent has been officially admitted to a mental care facility as described in Section 8103. The City reserves the right to rely on this ground for forfeiture in the event that Respondent requests a hearing on this petition. Should that happen, the City will determine the applicability of Section 8103 and provide any such information to the Court. Further, the City is informed by the Department of Justice, Mental Health Division that due to the related contact with San José police officers on February 28, 2021, Respondent has a current 5-year firearm prohibition that will expire on March 31, 2026 and the City believes returning Respondent’s WEAPON would pose a danger to himself and others. CONCLUSION Based upon the above, the City respectfully requests this Court to order Respondent’s WEAPON forfeited to the San José Police Department. The City further requests that the Court’s order reflect that the San José Police Department may destroy the weapons within 180 days unless Respondent facilitates its sales or transfer as outlined in Section 8102(h). 1 In the event that the Court were to find, following a hearing, that return of Respondent’s WEAPONS would not pose a danger to himself or others, the Court would be required to order that the San José Police Department make Respondent’s WEAPONS available for his resumed possession. To retake possession of the WEAPONS, Respondent would be required to establish legitimate ownership and related requirements as outlined in Section 8102(d). 4 PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF WEAPON Case Number: 1804896 O©OON®U1-POOI\J-\ NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem-POONAOCOmNmU'I-POONA Dated: March 29, 2021 Respectfully submitted, RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney By: Aaron Yu AARON YU Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE PETITION RE: DISPOSITION OF WEAPON Case Number: 1804896