Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Christopher Carita is a former detective within the Threat Response Unit at the Fort Lauderdale Police Department who focused on ERPO cases for the city during his tenure.
How did you get involved with the implementation of ERPOs, known as RPOs in Florida?
When the Risk Protection Order (RPO) law was passed in the wake of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School here in Florida, it really hit home for our department. Fort Lauderdale is in Broward County, and Parkland, where the shooting occurred, is essentially a suburb within the same county. So this tragedy was deeply personal for us.
At the time, our department already had a threat response unit in place, which had been around for about two years. The unit was the brainchild of one of our homicide detectives, Jack Di Cristofalo, who saw the need for a proactive approach. Back then, we were mostly waiting for cases to escalate into something criminal before taking action, and he recognized that as a problem. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting underscored the urgency of addressing threats earlier.
When the RPO law was enacted, it provided us with a critical tool, and the threat response unit expanded significantly. I was one of the first to transfer into the unit as its role grew to include investigating all RPO cases for the city of Fort Lauderdale.
At the same time, I had already been accepted into the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health through the Bloomberg American Health Initiative. This was while I was still working in a robbery and burglary suppression unit. I transferred into the threat response unit about three months before starting the program at Hopkins, not realizing at the time that RPOs were actually a public health tool. They had been developed by a group of like-minded individuals at Hopkins years earlier.
It was an exciting confluence of circumstances that brought me into this world of violence prevention and RPOs. Through the program, I got to meet incredible people like Shannon Frattaroli and Josh Horwitz—leaders who helped design these laws—just as I was tasked with putting them into practice. It was a remarkable experience that felt like everything aligned at the right moment.
Can you describe the process followed by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department for ERPO cases?
In Fort Lauderdale, the Police Department handles the process of RPOs a little differently compared to some other agencies. When a patrol officer comes across a potential threat—whether it’s a situation involving suicidal behavior, interpersonal violence, or a threat of mass violence—they’ll respond to the scene. But instead of dealing with the RPO petition themselves, it’s passed on to our threat response unit. That unit is responsible for investigating these cases and filing RPOs on behalf of the department. It’s a policy we’ve followed from the beginning.
One of the biggest advantages is that we have a really high success rate with these cases. In fact, since the law was passed, we’ve only been denied one RPO petition. That’s because we have the unit dedicated solely to investigating and handling these cases, which means we can put a lot of focus on making sure the process goes smoothly and the RPO petitions are solid.
Beyond managing the immediate threat of firearms, the broader goal is to address the root causes of the crisis that led to the RPO.
The downside is that the use of RPOs can sometimes be more limited in scope. Since only our Threat Response Unit handles the petitions, it means other officers—like those on patrol—aren’t always involved in the RPO process. As a result, the department might not be as proactive in filing RPOs for cases that aren’t as extreme, like suicide threats or domestic violence cases. These types of threats could potentially benefit from an RPO, but we’re not always capturing them as often as we could.
By comparison, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office takes a more widespread approach. They’ve trained all their patrol officers to identify cases where an RPO might be appropriate—whether it’s for a suicide risk, domestic violence, or even less extreme threats. They’re much more likely to see an RPO filed for those types of situations. But, for more serious cases involving mass violence or situations requiring a deeper investigation, Broward County has a specialized unit that takes over, much like our threat response unit.
Who are the stakeholders involved in the RPO process, and how are efforts coordinated?
The key stakeholders in the RPO process are numerous, starting with law enforcement officers and their agencies. It’s worth noting a challenge that has emerged in some states: while they allow law enforcement officers to file as petitioners for RPOs, they don’t explicitly permit law enforcement agencies to do so. This creates liability concerns for individual officers, as it makes it appear they’re personally petitioning for the order. Florida addressed this issue from the beginning by clarifying in the statute that both officers and their agencies can act as petitioners.
In our process, a city attorney is assigned to handle the filing of all RPOs and serves as the liaison and representative in court proceedings. This relationship has been a cornerstone of the system’s success in Fort Lauderdale.
Additionally, we collaborate closely with social service providers. Anderson Behavioral Health, for example, has been a key partner. They understand our procedures and have been invaluable in cases involving a mental health crisis alongside violent behavior.
Respondents themselves and their family members are also critical stakeholders. Employers may play a role, especially in understanding and navigating sensitive situations. Respecting the respondent’s dignity during the process is important, but we’re also mindful of our legal obligation to notify anyone they’ve threatened. For example, in cases of interpersonal violence, potential victims must be informed so they can take additional precautions or decide whether to pursue criminal charges.
Many RPO cases start with threats posted on social media, and we’ve seen situations where the person being targeted wasn’t even aware of the threats. Coordinating these various layers—respondents, their families, potential victims, and others—is essential to ensure nothing gets overlooked.
Beyond managing the immediate threat of firearms, the broader goal is to address the root causes of the crisis that led to the RPO. Without tackling the underlying issues, the respondent may remain a recurring concern for law enforcement. This is why having strong social safety nets, like mental health and behavioral support services, is vital. It alleviates the long-term burden on law enforcement and helps create a more sustainable resolution for everyone involved.
Any police officer ultimately wants to have the best tools at their disposal, and RPOs can be an excellent resource for addressing escalating threats.
What role did you play in the RPO process?
When I started with the unit, my role was to investigate cases involving threats of mass violence and any situations our patrol officers encountered that might be suitable for an RPO. At the time, I was working as a detective, and our unit had just expanded to four detectives and a sergeant. My primary responsibility was handling these cases directly.
As I progressed through the fellowship at Johns Hopkins, I began to see the challenges that other states and jurisdictions were facing with their RPO implementation processes. That gave me insight into areas where we could improve our own approach.
Part of my capstone project at Hopkins focused on creating training for our officers. I developed a program to educate all new and patrol officers on recognizing the criteria for using a Risk Protection Order and identifying cases where it could be applied effectively. Building on that, I created a more in-depth training program for detectives joining our unit. At the time, the state wasn’t providing any specific training tailored to what we were doing with RPOs. We relied heavily on our federal partners like the Secret Service and FBI for threat assessment training, but none of it was directly geared toward local law enforcement.
Since then, the state has introduced some behavioral threat assessment training, but Florida still doesn’t have a comprehensive course or direct training specifically related to Risk Protection Orders. Outside of basic guidelines, most of the training infrastructure has been something we’ve had to build ourselves.
Have there been any statewide or county-level training or awareness programs geared around RPO usage?
There isn’t really a state program specifically focused on RPOs in Florida. After the Parkland shooting, a lot of state funding went toward expanding local law enforcement’s capacity to conduct behavioral threat assessments. The emphasis was primarily on those assessments, and the state has been relatively quiet about directly addressing RPOs as a tool.
While RPOs are mentioned in training as one of several options for mitigating a threat, there isn’t any state-mandated training specifically focused on their use. As it stands, Florida doesn’t have a dedicated program for educating law enforcement on the practical application of RPOs.
Florida has consistently had some of the highest rates of ERPO usage in the country. What do you think are some factors that are driving this usage?
If you look at the numbers, there are three counties that really take the lead: Hillsborough, Broward, and Palm Beach. They have consistently high usage rates. Miami-Dade, surprisingly, is quite far behind despite its population size and firearm violence statistics.
One of the main drivers of high usage in certain areas has been champions—individuals or agencies taking the initiative to prioritize implementation. These champions make it a point to share their knowledge and training resources, which helps spread the practice within their regions.
One of the biggest advantages is that we have a really high success rate with these cases. In fact, since the law was passed, we’ve only been denied one RPO petition
Unfortunately, another factor is Florida’s history with tragedy. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting was a watershed moment. When a state experiences something as devastating as that, it cuts through political divides in a way few other things can. That tragedy has motivated a desire to do things differently and has contributed to the broader uptake of RPOs.
On the champions’ side, I’ve noticed that even in regions where law enforcement has been slow to adopt RPOs—rural counties or smaller cities, for example—they often have a turning point. It usually comes when a specific case arises, and they realize how useful the tool can be. Once they see it in action—removing firearms from a dangerous situation or de-escalating a crisis—they start to understand its value and want to learn more.
For example, I’ve been conducting trainings at our local police academy, which are open to all agencies. Initially, I expected participation from agencies in our tri-county area, but I’ve had officers traveling from across the state to attend these classes. It seems that once officers see how effective RPOs can be, they want to make sure they’re using the tool correctly and as effectively as possible. Any police officer ultimately wants to have the best tools at their disposal, and RPOs can be an excellent resource for addressing escalating threats.
How much resistance do you see among law enforcement about the use of ERPOs, and what persuades law enforcement around the merits and utility of this tool?
I’ve seen resistance come down tremendously over the last few years, especially among law enforcement. While there’s a general perception that officers tend to lean conservative, the reality is they represent a wide range of views. What I’ve found to be universal among police officers, however, is their commitment to safety—for themselves and for their communities. As more good information has emerged, resistance has decreased. Officers see that, first, RPOs are being used properly; second, there’s little to no abuse being documented; and third, they’re working. These factors help shift perspectives, and politics tend to get set aside.
As long as we, meaning those who use and understand RPOs, continue to use them responsibly and share knowledge about their proper application, I believe we’ll see even more acceptance. When officers realize that RPOs are simply another effective tool to prevent gun violence and keep people safe, they’re more willing to come around. It’s all about showing that this tool works and can be trusted.
There is sometimes a concern that ERPO cases may be dangerous and confrontational for law enforcement. Has that been your experience in these cases?
In my experience, the vast majority of these cases have been non-confrontational. Respondents may not be thrilled to be involved in an RPO case or to relinquish their firearms for a year, but by the time we reach the point of serving the order and collecting the firearms, they typically understand the process and our concerns. This understanding leads to relatively little resistance.
In Fort Lauderdale, most RPO cases result in a stipulation. Respondents often waive their hearing, sign off on the order, and agree to its terms. This outcome is largely due to thorough investigations and our effort to be fair and transparent. We take the time to explain our concerns and why we believe removing firearms is necessary.
In many ways, it’s akin to a face-to-face negotiation, similar to what I’ve experienced with my background in hostage negotiation. The goal is compliance through communication. When you genuinely try to understand someone’s perspective and clearly explain your own, you’re far more likely to achieve a peaceful resolution. That approach has been effective in RPO cases as well.
Over nearly five years of working on these cases, we’ve only had one instance where the respondent refused to come out and be served. That was a particularly complex case involving a military background, paranoia, and other complicating factors. Even so, it resolved peacefully in the end, though it did result in an arrest. Cases like that are the exception, not the rule.
Of course, safety planning is critical. If you’re dealing with someone exhibiting violent behavior and with access to firearms, you need to approach it as you would any potentially dangerous situation. This includes conducting background checks, assessing the individual’s behavior, and understanding the safety risks before approaching.
In situations where a person might not cooperate, we take additional precautions. For instance, we might conduct surveillance and wait for an opportunity to conduct a traffic stop when the individual is away from their home and firearms. Alternatively, we’ve called respondents and asked them to meet us outside their homes to avoid surprising them at the door. Transparency helps; we’re honest about why we’re there, explaining that they aren’t under arrest and that we just need to discuss the matter. Often, we’ve already had prior contact with them, so they aren’t completely surprised by the visit.
Ultimately, each case requires a tailored approach. It depends on the individual’s history, current behavior, and level of cooperation. While taking all necessary precautions, we aim to resolve situations peacefully and professionally, just as we would in any law enforcement scenario.
This is why having strong social safety nets, like mental health and behavioral support services, is vital. It alleviates the long-term burden on law enforcement and helps create a more sustainable resolution for everyone involved.
How is compliance dealt with to ensure that all firearms are relinquished when an order is issued?
You can solve many compliance issues by doing your homework before serving the order. That starts with interviewing as many people as possible, especially family members or others in the household who might know whether the respondent has firearms. Ask about storage locations—do they own a storage shed? Do they keep firearms in their vehicle? All of this information should be included in the application for the RPO so that the judge can include these details in the order and authorize a search if needed.
In cases where resistance is possible, and you have reason to believe the respondent possesses firearms, you’ll want to have that information ready to seek a search warrant if necessary.
In Florida, the process is a little unique. Some states include a search warrant as part of the ERPO. Here, it’s a civil order—until it’s not. When we arrive on the scene, if we believe there are firearms, we’re required to ask for compliance and for the respondent to relinquish the firearms. If they refuse, but we have probable cause based on our prior investigation, we must secure a search warrant to proceed.
There are also cases where there’s no evidence the respondent owns firearms, and we cannot search the home. That’s okay—we report back to the judge, who holds a compliance hearing, usually within 24 to 48 hours of serving the order. At that point, the judge determines whether they are satisfied with the level of compliance. If not, they can decide to issue a search warrant.
That said, in Fort Lauderdale, most of our cases resolve without these complications. We’ve done our homework upfront, and our compliance hearings tend to be more of a formality. Proper preparation, thorough investigation, and clear communication with all parties involved help ensure that firearms are appropriately relinquished and compliance is achieved effectively.
What are the most common cases in which RPOs are used by your agency, and have the type of RPO cases changed over the years?
In Fort Lauderdale, the use of RPOs tends to differ a bit from other parts of the country. As of a year or two ago, about 70% of our RPO cases involved threats of interpersonal violence, while only 30% were related to suicide threats. In many other states, this trend is reversed, with more focus on suicide prevention. The emphasis in Florida is largely driven by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting and the focus on preventing mass violence and threats to others.
This has remained fairly consistent over the years, with threats to others making up the majority of cases. Florida’s law, which imposes a felony penalty for violating an RPO, also influences how it is applied, especially for cases involving threats of suicide. The heavy penalty, with a mandatory four-year minimum for a first violation, can make it less appropriate to use an RPO in cases where someone is struggling with a mental health crisis and threatening suicide.
In those cases, we tend to use other methods, like mental health holds or a firearm restriction form, which a physician can fill out to prevent someone from purchasing or possessing firearms. While these tools are available, the system isn’t always easy to navigate, especially in urgent situations, and we’ve developed a protocol in Fort Lauderdale to maximize the use of all available resources.
In short, while we still see a significant number of RPOs for suicide threats, the majority of our cases are more often related to interpersonal violence, and that pattern hasn’t changed much over the years.
What are the ways in which Fort Lauderdale utilizes other relevant tools when an RPO isn’t appropriate?
In Fort Lauderdale, when an RPO isn’t the most appropriate tool, we have developed several other methods to address mental health crises and prevent access to firearms. We have trained our officers, especially new recruits, to recognize situations where an RPO may be needed. This includes identifying mental health crises where individuals may be a risk to themselves. It’s crucial that officers know how to flag these cases early, which ensures we’re catching potential threats before they escalate.
We’ve worked closely with the hospital system to understand how individuals get flagged for evaluation under Florida’s Baker Act (involuntary mental health evaluation). One thing we discovered is that officers’ reports sometimes lack enough detail for doctors to take extra precautions. For instance, if a person is on their best behavior when being evaluated and the officer’s report is vague, the doctor might not have enough information to fully assess the risk.
To address this, we’ve retrained officers to provide full, detailed reports when they bring someone in for mental health evaluation. This includes articulating the person’s access to firearms, specific threats made, and any relevant family history shared. This detailed narrative ensures that the doctor has a complete picture when making their evaluation. In our reports to the hospital, officers now also specifically ask doctors to consider firearm prohibition for individuals being evaluated. This raises a flag for the doctor to consider whether a restriction is necessary, giving them the information they need to make an informed decision.
This approach ensures that we aren’t overusing RPOs, especially given the severe penalties they carry when violated, but we’re still doing everything we can to prevent those in crisis from having access to firearms. By filling in the gaps in other systems like mental health holds and firearm restrictions, we can better protect individuals and the public while respecting the complexity of each case.
Have you seen a lot of violations to the RPOs over the years?
No, we’ve only had three violations in the five years we’ve been using Risk Protection Orders. One of those was at the time of service, where the respondent claimed they had no firearms. However, we had reason to believe otherwise, and after obtaining a search warrant, we discovered they were still in possession of another firearm.
Another case involved a respondent who attempted to purchase a firearm while under an active RPO. The system worked as intended—the purchase was flagged and blocked, we were notified, and we made an arrest before he could gain possession of the firearm.
For the most part, people comply with the orders. They understand the penalties for violations, and compliance has been quite successful. We also see parallels with suicide attempts or risks. If you can interrupt someone’s first attempt, whether it’s an act of violence or self-harm, it’s less common than people might think for them to pursue alternative methods to carry it out. This pattern holds true with Risk Protection Orders as well.
What are some challenges that Fort Lauderdale and Florida face when it comes to implementing RPOs, and what are some opportunities for improvement?
One of the main challenges is that every agency has had to develop its own policy for implementing RPOs. This means that even within Broward County, if I need help with a case in another jurisdiction, I’m not always sure who to contact because procedures can differ across agencies. There is no clear statewide directive or standardization, so each agency is navigating this on their own.
However, this decentralized approach isn’t entirely negative. While a state directive can be helpful, it can also risk being too prescriptive and not take into account the unique needs of different communities. For example, rural counties in Florida tend to have higher suicide rates than urban areas, and if the state focuses only on interpersonal violence, those counties might miss an opportunity to use RPOs as a tool for suicide prevention. So, there’s a need for more empowerment at the local level to tailor the application of RPOs to the specific gun violence issues in their jurisdictions.
Moreover, integrating RPOs into a broader gun violence reduction strategy is critical. What’s the expression? To a hammer everything is a nail. Law enforcement agencies are still adapting to a preventive mindset, rather than the traditionally reactive approach of responding to crimes after they occur. RPOs allow us to intervene before an event escalates, but law enforcement often doesn’t think of them as part of a proactive strategy. Shifting that mindset to recognize crisis situations and intervene with RPOs could prevent many incidents from becoming violent.
So, the opportunity for improvement lies in educating agencies about the full potential of RPOs. Understanding what RPOs can and can’t do, and having the confidence to apply them effectively, is key. Agencies should be encouraged to think holistically about how these tools fit into their unique community’s gun violence challenges and adopt them as part of a comprehensive strategy.
What advice would you give other jurisdictions that are either just about starting to implement an ERPO law or looking to strengthen their protocol and practice?
For smaller, resource-constrained agencies, the challenge often isn’t a lack of interest in implementing RPOs, but rather that it’s not at the top of the priority list due to limited resources. My advice to these agencies is to designate one person—just one—who is already handling cases related to gun violence, domestic violence, or firearms-related incidents. Empower that individual to seek training or connect with agencies that are already working with RPOs.
Even a small amount of exposure to how RPOs work and understanding their utility can go a long way in building confidence. Once that person becomes familiar with the process, they can share that knowledge across the department, and officers will likely see how useful these tools can be. Many officers will appreciate having an additional resource for cases that feel especially dangerous or volatile, where they don’t know what other option they have. RPOs can be a critical tool in those situations and can help officers feel more prepared and equipped to handle complex, high-risk cases.
Additionally, as more states pass these laws, they need to be learning from the implementation struggles that other states have had. If law enforcement is going to be the entity mainly responsible for utilizing these tools, they need to be at the table when the laws are being crafted. They need to be part of the equation. I’ve been frustrated to see that that hasn’t been the case. I am hoping that law enforcement agencies in some of the states that have recently passed the law are able to step back from the politics of it and understand that they have a tremendous tool at their disposal now. And I hope that they reach out and learn as much as they can about how they can use it.
About Christopher Carita
Christopher is the co-founder of Carita Consulting, a firm focused on systematic approaches to violence prevention. Christopher earned his Master of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University as an esteemed Bloomberg American Health Initiative Fellow focusing on Violence Prevention. He works directly with leaders to build their capacity to prevent violence. He is a national expert on violence prevention, behavioral threat assessment, and the implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Laws. He brings 19 years of invaluable experience in law enforcement where he excelled as a Hostage/Crisis Negotiator and a Detective, specializing in the investigation of threats of mass violence. He currently serves as the Law Enforcement Advisor for 97 Percent, Co-Founder of the Florida ERPO Working Group, and subject-matter expert for the National ERPO Center at Johns Hopkins.