Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller

Summary

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two, holds that the post-2023 statutory scheme governing orders to surrender and prohibit weapons does not, by its mere issuance, violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. The court concludes that law enforcement’s limited role does not constitute sufficient state action for Fourth Amendment purposes and that the statutory immunity provisions address realistic threats of self-incrimination. The court reverses the superior court’s refusal to issue an order to surrender weapons and remands for application of the statute.

Holdings

1. The mere issuance of an order to surrender and prohibit weapons under the current statutory scheme does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the statutory administration of the order does not involve sufficient state action to trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
2. The post-2023 amendments to the weapons-surrender statutes resolve the self-incrimination concerns associated with issuance of an order to surrender and prohibit weapons.
3. After granting the domestic violence protection order and finding the statutory conditions satisfied, the superior court was required to apply RCW 9.41.800 and consider issuance of an order to surrender and prohibit weapons; constitutional concerns based solely on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not justify refusing to do so.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court erred by declining to issue an order to surrender and prohibit weapons after granting a domestic violence protection order.
2. Whether issuance of an order to surrender and prohibit weapons under the post-2023 statutory scheme violates the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether issuance and enforcement of an order to surrender and prohibit weapons under the post-2023 statutory scheme violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded