Fairfax County, Virginia
Amanda Paris serves as a Sergeant with the Fairfax County Police Department and has been instrumental in the department’s training and implementation of ERPOs.
How did the Fairfax County Police Department get involved in the ERPO process, and what role do you play in the petition process?
When the Extreme Risk law came into effect on July 1, 2020, our department decided to meet with relevant stakeholders to determine how we were going to implement this law. We are a police department, but we also have the sheriff’s office with us and a few other smaller municipalities within us. We met with leaders of each department, as well as the courts, to determine what processes we would each follow. Each agency decided to engage with this law on their own and it was ultimately decided that the police department, which I am a part of, would handle the service of ERPOs instead of the sheriff’s office, which usually handles other civil protection order paperwork. I met with our circuit court judges, introduced myself, and said, “If you see me in court, I’m not that random person. This is what I’m here for. So if you have questions, feel free to ask me while we’re in court.” Additionally, we worked with some attorneys to help us interpret the law when it was fairly new to us—since it certainly has some gray areas.
I had been in those planning meetings from the start and was the only representative from the police department, and as a consequence, it fell on me to say, “Hey, what does this mean?” I started to track these orders, piecing together the best practices to utilize them, and became the go-to resource for the department. I track the statistics on the orders and I’m the person officers can reach out to for answers to any questions that they have, whether it be about the specifics of the law or determining if an ERPO would be appropriate for a particular case. Additionally, I conduct trainings for other police agencies throughout Virginia. It can be scary for agencies who are new to the law and are just starting to use it, but I teach them how to use it in their context.
Have there been any training or awareness programs to increase the understanding of the law?
Yes, there’s one statewide training conducted by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services that describes the law. The hour-long training I conduct takes it a step further and talks about what types of cases would be good to obtain them on and what the process looks like. I do a deep dive using the firsthand experiences that we’ve had within our agency and the different types of cases where we have used this tool. All of our recruits in our academy receive this training. I’ve put together a 20-minute video, which is a condensed version of the longer training that’s required to be watched by all law enforcement in our agency. They can do that while out on the street or when they’re working on a case that they have questions about. I also regularly do roll-call trainings with our squads as a refresher every year. And officers receive a cheat sheet and some paperwork that they can keep in their car in case they have questions.
Who are the stakeholders involved in the ERPO process, and how are those efforts coordinated?
There are a lot of different stakeholders and who is involved at any given time depends on the type of case. There’s the complainant because—even though only law enforcement and the Commonwealth attorneys can petition for ERPOs in Virginia—we need that witness, family member, or loved one, to reach out and talk to us about the situation. We, as the police department, are a key stakeholder and we work closely with our Commonwealth Attorney’s office to coordinate efforts. By law, the Attorney’s Office has to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, so they are always present in the courtroom. We have designated four different Commonwealth Attorneys to be in charge of ERPO proceedings. which helps since they are more familiar with the law. We have to cultivate and maintain that relationship because they are the ones representing the Commonwealth in these cases. Often mental health practitioners are involved, even though clinicians cannot petition themselves. They will sometimes reach out to law enforcement if a person appears to be at risk of violence based on conversations that they’ve had or things that they observe with their patients, or to provide a better understanding during an investigation. The biggest stakeholder in the process is our community because, without them, we won’t be able to do what we do.
It’s not just a police department issue, or a Commonwealth or judge issue, everyone has to work together to accomplish the goal for a safer community.
What kind of cases do you typically see ERPOs being successfully used for in Fairfax County? Have these circumstances changed over the years?
Broadly speaking, our ERPO cases can be categorized into three groups: cases involving mental illness, domestic violence, and an “other” category. The majority of the cases are of the first type, involving someone suffering from a mental health crisis who is at risk of harm to themselves by either the use of a firearm or threatening the use of a firearm. Domestic violence cases make up the second most common use of ERPOs, followed by the other category. And by other, I mean people that are not in a family with the individual—it could be a stranger or an acquaintance, but they’re not in that person’s family.
After a court issues an ERPO, how do you ensure the individual complies with the order?
When it comes to compliance, we’re required by law to ask individuals to voluntarily relinquish their firearms to us. It comes down to talking and building a rapport with that individual. All of our officers are crisis intervention trained and that often helps officers build a relationship with the person involved and delicately navigate these situations. We help the individual understand it’s only temporary, they have the opportunity to get their firearms back. The majority of the time, people are okay with that because they’ve realized that it’s not forever and that their gun rights are not being taken away permanently. Essentially, if they can understand that we are here to help, then the majority of the time we don’t have issues with people voluntarily relinquishing their firearms to us.
If, for some reason, the person doesn’t want to comply, the law allows us to obtain a search warrant. In these situations,—usually 5 percent of all ERPO cases—we charge them with a class one misdemeanor stating that they have been served with a risk order and they’re still in possession of those firearms. We’ll then write a search warrant that allows us access to their house, their car, wherever it may be, to obtain those firearms. If through our investigations, we know that they have, let’s say, five firearms and we obtain five firearms, our investigation ends there. If we know that they have five firearms and we only find three, we’ll dig a little deeper to see where those other two remaining firearms are. Or if we find out that they didn’t tell us the truth and there’s another one, we can always go ahead and charge them later with that class one misdemeanor and obtain a search warrant to obtain those firearms that are outstanding.
ERPO cases are often characterized as dangerous and confrontational for law enforcement. Has that been your experience?
Any case involving a firearm is going to be dangerous for law enforcement, but that’s why we are educated and trained on how to properly handle these situations. Prior to serving an ERPO, we make sure that we are aware of what’s going on, including collecting information regarding the respondent, their house where we need to serve them, and who are the people involved in the house. We fill out forms with all of these details that go up our chain of command to see who is the best-suited entity to serve the risk order. More often than not, the SWAT team does not serve these; it usually comes down to patrol serving our ERPOs. If I am getting a call that someone’s in a house with a firearm, not walking up to the door, I’m not going to go knocking on it and introducing myself. I’m going to take other tactical measures, maybe call them out or do different things that will protect myself, but also protect the individuals that are involved in this case. We assess each case to ensure that if we haven’t already established contact with the person, we are taking the necessary steps to safely serve them. We want them to understand exactly what we’re there for, what it means when we serve someone with a risk order, and how it’s not forever, it’s only temporary, and they have that opportunity to get their firearms back.
Have you experienced resistance to Extreme Risk laws in Fairfax County or the state? What are some ways in which law enforcement are persuaded to see the merits and utility of this tool?
It comes down to education. Some officers might not know the extent of the law and what it entails. They think it’s a tool to take everyone’s firearms whether they’ve done anything or not. But that’s definitely not what the law states. Law enforcement has to conduct an investigation to determine if that person is at substantial risk of violence. It’s only temporary and not long-term. And I explain that the law has due process built into it. That’s why the law was written such that a hearing has to take place within 14 days for individuals to be able to contest the order, if they’d like. Some officers may have this mindset when they come into training, but by the time they are fully trained up on the law, that thought process has gone away and they understand that it’s a tool for law enforcement to help individuals who might be at risk of hurting themselves or others. When you explain the full picture to them, they understand. I’ve never really had that issue when it comes to officers.
The biggest stakeholder in the process is our community because, without them, we won’t be able to do what we do.
Considering family members and certain professionals, such as medical and mental health professionals, aren’t allowed to petition for ERPOs in Virginia, do you get any people contacting you to file on their behalf? What support is in place to facilitate that?
Fairfax County created a website that has resources explaining the law, including a video of a few of us describing the process to obtain an ERPO. There are definitely avenues through which we get contacted for prospective ERPO cases. A lot of the time, we get called either by psychiatrists or therapists, “Hey, I have a client, they mentioned that there’s this red flag law and we think that they would benefit from it.” Or sometimes a friend or family member will call the police department saying, “Hey, I have a friend or loved one that wants to buy a gun and they seem to be in crisis.” When we get these calls, we gather all the information we can from the caller and conduct an investigation. If through our investigation, we determine that they are, in fact, at substantial risk to either themselves or others, we’re going to obtain that ERPO and we’ll be there throughout that process for them. These calls typically are for cases involving mental health crises and threats of self-harm. In domestic violence cases, we are usually responding to a domestic violence incident or disturbance call, and through that investigation, officers determine that an ERPO needs to be taken out.
What are some challenges that Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia face when implementing these laws? What are some opportunities for improvement?
A challenge we used to have was around court hearing dates and multiple service of orders. When a risk order was first issued, a court date was not set. This would mean that officers would first need to serve the emergency risk order and once a court date was scheduled, the court clerk would send out a letter to respondents informing them of the date. In many cases, serving the letter would be difficult and time-consuming since the person may have moved, lived out of state, or been homeless. In these situations, judges would keep continuing the case and it would be on our department to find this person again in order to notify them of the hearing date, putting officers potentially at risk and taking them off patrol multiple times for one case.
We brought this issue to the attention of the court and our head circuit court judge allowed us to schedule ERPO hearings every Thursday at 10 am. Now, when officers obtain an emergency risk order and are going to serve it, they know that the hearing will be 14 days out on the closest Thursday and they hand write it on the paperwork. This way it is guaranteed that the respondent has been notified of the hearing and cases don’t have to keep being continued. We were able to address this issue by working with the judges and clerks to streamline the process for everyone involved and our officers have one less thing they need to do and worry about. This is a great example of the importance of coordination among key stakeholders. It’s not just a police department issue, or a Commonwealth or judge issue, everyone has to work together to accomplish the goal for a safer community.
What advice would you give other jurisdictions that are starting to implement an Extreme Risk law or looking to strengthen their existing practices?
It is key to have buy-in from the chiefs and the executives to help set up effective implementation of the law. It is also critical to set up education efforts because without awareness of the law and how to use it, it might seem scary, but when you actually go through the process of obtaining an ERPO, it’s not as scary as it originally appeared. It’s like everything else that we’ve done. When they change traffic laws, for example, it’s something new and unfamiliar, but the more times that you can practice it, the easier it’s going to get and the more familiar officers are going to be with the law and the situations in which it applies. And we see this reflected in the data. In our department alone, the number of risk orders that our officers are obtaining has increased every year. If we keep on track this year, we are going to surpass last year’s numbers as well. This is why I believe education is key. I always make myself available to agencies or departments all the time, in case they want to reach out with any questions. But educating and training officers about the tool helps them recognize the signs of when a person is at risk to themselves or others, and make decisions about seeking an ERPO to protect the community. Additionally, it is important to educate the public about this law and how it can be a tool for law enforcement to keep our community safe.
About Amanda Paris
Amanda Paris serves as a Sergeant with the Fairfax County Police Department with over 14 years of law enforcement experience. She is currently assigned to the Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center, where she oversees the Threat Assessment Management Unit. Prior to that, Sergeant Paris was a Domestic Violence Detective investigating felony and misdemeanor domestic violence and dating offenses. She was instrumental in the department’s training and implementation of both the Emergency Substantial Risk Order (ESRO) policy—the term used to refer to ERPOs in Virginia—and the investigation of GPS tracking cases. Sergeant Paris is recognized as a subject matter expert on the ESROs, not only for Fairfax County but for the entire state of Virginia. As a certified instructor, she has taught a variety of subjects, including domestic violence, lethality assessment, DUI, and GPS tracking devices, to law enforcement departments and agencies, as well as civilian groups and organizations. Sergeant Paris has been engaged in changing her department’s culture in responding to and investigating intimate partner crimes, especially those involving marginalized populations. Additionally, she is a highly regarded member of the department’s Crisis Negotiations Team.