King County, Washington
King County has long been a pioneer in ERPO implementation and firearm relinquishment as part of Domestic Violence Protection Orders. Kimberly Wyatt and Shaya Calvo are Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys in King County and part of the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit, leading the charge to ensure that ERPOs are being used effectively in their county as well as lending their expertise to the rest of the state and other jurisdictions across the country.
How did the prosecutors’ office in King County get involved in the ERPO petition process?
While Washington State’s ERPO law passed in December, 2016 by Citizens Initiative, it was underutilized initially. Our early efforts, guided by retired Judge Anne Levinson and other stakeholders, focused primarily on creating model policies to enforce civil Domestic Violence Protection Orders related to firearm surrender. ERPOs weren’t the central focus at the start.
That shifted about six weeks after our unit launched when the Parkland tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School occurred. Law enforcement agencies began reaching out, asking how we could prevent something similar in our jurisdiction. This catalyzed our work with ERPOs, and over time, we’ve expanded our efforts to help other jurisdictions and states establish their own ERPO units. We see ERPOs as a vital tool for enhancing public safety and preventing violence in our communities.
Our involvement began with the formation of the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit in early 2018. This unit, which includes the King County Prosecutor’s Office, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle Police Department, and King County Sheriff’s Office, was designed to serve the entire King County region, spanning over 35 law enforcement agencies.
What role do you both play in the ERPO process?
We act as primary points of contact for law enforcement agencies across the county, offering guidance and real-time assistance. Agencies typically reach out through our dedicated ERPO inbox, directly by word of mouth, or after participating in a training we’ve conducted. We’re available 24/7 to help law enforcement vet potential cases, ensuring they meet the criteria for an ERPO. These initial reviews often involve calls where one or both of us work closely with officers to determine if an ERPO is the right tool for the situation.
Beyond supporting law enforcement, we collaborate within our own office to make sure other prosecutors in the Office are informed about ERPOs. Sometimes a prosecutor handling a separate case may identify a situation better suited for an ERPO and immediately connect us with the investigating detective. This internal collaboration allows us to act quickly, as ERPO cases often require urgent action to ensure community safety.
Who are the various stakeholders involved in the ERPO implementation, and what do coordination efforts look like?
The implementation of ERPOs involves a wide network of stakeholders, including judges, clerks, prosecutors, and law enforcement. In King County, we’ve built on the framework established for Domestic Violence Protection Orders, as the processes are quite similar. Due to an early convening of these stakeholders, we have had a collaborative approach from the start.
A key element is having dedicated points of contact—someone within each agency responsible for guiding the ERPO process. Early on, we encountered cases where law enforcement struggled to file an ERPO due to unfamiliarity with the process. For example, an agency once had to travel to downtown Seattle to file because their local municipal court didn’t know how to handle it. To avoid such scenarios, we’ve streamlined the process by serving as central contacts for law enforcement, reviewing cases in real time, filing documents, and ensuring they reach the judge promptly.
Our team also includes an ERPO advocate who monitors our inbox and responds to inquiries, even from family members who may not know the term “ERPO” but express concerns like wanting to remove firearms from a loved one in crisis. Coordination extends beyond initial filings—ERPOs must be entered quickly into systems like the FBI’s National Crime Information Center to ensure enforcement. We’ve worked closely with court clerks and records staff to prioritize this step, ensuring orders are logged promptly to prevent firearm purchases.
Judges also play a critical role, often prioritizing ERPO hearings on busy calendars to address their time-sensitive nature. For law enforcement, this means less time spent away from their duties. Legislative changes have further supported this prioritization to streamline the process.
Finally, law enforcement remains a vital stakeholder, whether they’re petitioning for an ERPO or serving family-initiated orders. We provide them with as much information as possible, including firearm details and risk factors, to ensure they’re prepared for safe and effective service. This multi-stakeholder coordination is critical to the success of ERPOs in King County.
What is the role of the ERPO advocate in your unit?
The ERPO advocate plays a crucial role as a bridge between individuals in crisis and the ERPO process. Their primary function is to support families and community members navigating this challenging situation. Many people don’t immediately understand the difference between a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) and an ERPO, so the advocate helps determine whether the primary concern is removing firearms or obtaining broader protection.
For families in crisis, the advocate offers guidance on completing ERPO petitions, providing step-by-step instructions on the necessary documents, where to submit them, and what to expect in the process. This support is critical because families are often under immense stress and may feel overwhelmed. The advocate ensures they are not walking this path alone, helping them articulate concerns clearly and reminding them of the implications of their statements, such as the sworn declaration being part of the public record and served on the respondent.
The advocate also connects individuals with other resources, such as crisis or substance abuse services, ensuring holistic support. While they cannot provide legal advice, they act as a knowledgeable point of contact for those who may hesitate to approach law enforcement or prosecutors directly. This is especially helpful in cases where confidentiality is a concern, such as when medical professionals inquire about an ERPO without breaching patient privacy.
Additionally, the advocate often has a background in domestic violence advocacy, which is essential given the overlap in these areas. They may address situations where a DVPO and an ERPO intersect, ensuring that the appropriate tools are used for each case. They also participate in multidisciplinary discussions with the unit to address complex cases and coordinate with law enforcement as needed.
How often do you see civilians file their own petitions either through the ERPO advocate or otherwise?
Civilians filing their own ERPO petitions is relatively rare in King County. While the team receives more inquiries from family members and community members than actual petitions, the numbers remain small. For example, out of around 130 ERPO cases last year, only seven or eight were family-initiated petitions.
Many civilians who approach the ERPO advocate are often guided toward other orders, such as domestic violence, anti-harassment, or stalking orders, as these may better address their specific needs. In addition, civilians frequently prefer law enforcement to petition on their behalf, particularly when they live in the same household as the respondent. This alleviates the pressure on family members, such as a parent who may feel conflicted about petitioning against their child. Consequently, law enforcement often steps in to file petitions based on information provided by families or other community members.
For families in crisis, the advocate offers guidance on completing ERPO petitions, providing step-by-step instructions on the necessary documents, where to submit them, and what to expect in the process. This support is critical because families are often under immense stress and may feel overwhelmed.
Another barrier to civilian-filed petitions is a general lack of awareness and understanding about ERPOs. Many civilians are unaware that ERPOs are civil, not criminal, and are temporary measures designed for individuals in crisis or posing significant danger to themselves or others. This lack of understanding underscores the need for further public education about ERPOs.
Have there been any statewide or county-level trainings or efforts to raise awareness among key stakeholders?
King County has been a leader in raising awareness and providing training on ERPOs to key stakeholders, with most of these efforts spearheaded by the both of us.
Training Initiatives
- Collaborations with Advocacy Organizations: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility has hosted several trainings across the state, focusing on both DVPOs and ERPOs. We have participated in these sessions to educate stakeholders on the legal framework and practical applications.
- Law Enforcement and Prosecutors: Trainings have been conducted with law enforcement agencies, including targeted roll call sessions and workshops for the Prosecutors Association. Recently, we delivered a training in Eastern Washington, a region geographically and culturally distinct from King County.
- Medical Professionals and Crisis Workers: We have provided training to family physicians, social workers at the VA, and crisis intervention workers, emphasizing ERPOs as tools to address firearm risks in cases of mental health crises or threats of violence. Upcoming sessions with doctors at Harborview Medical Center will further expand outreach to the healthcare community.
- Educational Resources for Recruits: ERPO materials were developed for the Basic Law Enforcement Academy and incorporated into ongoing education programs for new recruits. While these resources require updates to remain current, they have served as foundational training tools.
Key Goals of Training
- Addressing Misconceptions: Educating stakeholders that ERPOs are not “gun grabs” but civil measures designed to prevent harm by temporarily removing firearms from individuals posing a danger to themselves or others.
- Encouraging Reporting and Filing: Empowering law enforcement and community members to recognize when an ERPO may be appropriate and to confidently petition or refer cases.
- Building Trust in the Process: Highlighting the unit’s rigorous vetting of cases, ensuring that ERPO filings are justified and rooted in safety concerns, building credibility among law enforcement and community members.
While significant efforts have been made, resources remain a constraint. With a small team handling both training and casework, outreach can be limited. However, the expansion of Zoom-based training has enabled more flexible and widespread sessions, allowing for broader engagement across the state.
Moving forward, updating training materials, increasing collaboration with additional stakeholder groups, and leveraging both in-person and virtual sessions will be crucial to expanding ERPO awareness and adoption.
What are the most common circumstances that you see ERPOs being used in, and have the type of cases changed over the years?
Most of the ERPO cases we see fall under one of the following categories:
Suicidal Ideation and Self-Harm
Historically, the majority of ERPO cases involved individuals exhibiting suicidal tendencies or engaging in self-harm behaviors. These cases remain common as ERPOs provide a tool to temporarily restrict access to firearms during acute crises.
Threats of Mass Violence
There has been a noticeable increase in cases involving individuals expressing homicidal ideation or threats of mass violence. These often include workplace grievances, and threats directed at schools, hospitals, or other institutions, indicating an uptick in cases related to “grievance-motivated” violence.
Paranoid and Delusional Behaviors
Recent years have seen an increase in ERPO cases involving individuals exhibiting paranoid or delusional behaviors. Examples include individuals firing bullets through walls into neighboring apartments under the belief that intruders are present, even when there is no evidence of a threat. These incidents often involve substance abuse or untreated mental health conditions. Many of these individuals return to court for the final hearing after receiving some medical or mental health intervention and acknowledge, “Yes, at this time I shouldn’t have had a gun. I agree to the ERPO.”
Many civilians are unaware that ERPOs are civil, not criminal, and are temporary measures designed for individuals in crisis or posing significant danger to themselves or others. This lack of understanding underscores the need for further public education about ERPOs.
There is sometimes a concern that ERPO cases may be dangerous and confrontational for law enforcement. Has that been your experience in these cases?
Law enforcement agencies have been highly strategic in minimizing risks and confrontation when serving ERPOs. Officers often coordinate with family members to determine the safest way to approach individuals or attempt to make contact outside the home. This thoughtful planning helps avoid escalation, and while there are occasional instances requiring additional measures, such as a SWAT team’s involvement, these are rare—occurring only a few times a year.
A significant factor in this success is the crisis-related training officers receive, which equips them to clearly communicate the civil nature of ERPOs. By explaining that the individual is not being arrested, firearms will be safely stored, and there is an opportunity to contest the order in court, officers reduce misunderstandings and build cooperation. The process also benefits from close collaboration between law enforcement and the both of us––we are available to address challenges such as firearm recovery or legal follow-ups.
Interestingly, many respondents express gratitude toward law enforcement for their professionalism and humanity. Officers from Seattle Police Department’s crisis response team, in particular, are often thanked in court for their respectful and compassionate approach, even during difficult circumstances. This reflects the broader success of a “humanity-first” approach, which not only ensures safety but also preserves dignity during a vulnerable time.
While most people recognize signs of self-harm, there’s less awareness of behaviors linked to threats against others. We believe it’s essential to teach the public how to identify these early signs—such as when someone is fixated on firearms or exhibiting concerning ideations—so intervention can happen before things escalate.
What do compliance efforts look like to ensure that firearms are relinquished after an ERPO is granted by the court?
To ensure firearms are relinquished after an ERPO is granted, the process has evolved significantly. Courts hold compliance hearings to review firearms compliance every Thursday, shortly after the ERPO is issued. At this point, if all firearms aren’t accounted for, it indicates missed opportunities in the service process. To track compliance, firearm information sheets are filed in court, detailing any state purchase history, concealed pistol licenses, and recovered firearms. These documents help law enforcement and the court confirm compliance, and we attend hearings to address any concerns.
A key element in this process is the role of the ERPO advocate, who helps close gaps when firearms are recovered by different police agencies or when a family member or neighbor takes possession. The advocate tracks down all firearms, ensuring the court has accurate information. For example, if two firearms are with different police departments, the advocate contacts those agencies to confirm possession, so the judge can review the complete picture.
Additionally, over time, the system has expanded to account for 3D-printed or privately made firearms and firearm parts, which can be assembled later. This has become a necessary measure to address the growing presence of such firearms. Another critical step involves preventing future purchases. Even if a person doesn’t currently own a firearm, the ERPO can stop pending purchases by notifying firearms dealers, as was the case with several individuals exhibiting suicidality.
Finally, improvements in tracking have been made, such as receiving lists of all ERPO filings in King County from the clerk’s office. This allows for better outreach to families, especially when they file an ERPO at a different courthouse. This system ensures that the right people are alerted early, helping law enforcement close the loop on firearm recovery and improving compliance efforts overall.
What are some challenges that King County and Washington state have faced with implementation of this law?
One of the main challenges we’ve faced is the lack of public awareness. Early on, there wasn’t a strong effort to inform the public about the law, leaving many people unaware of its existence and its benefits. We think it’s crucial to create a centralized online hub that includes ERPO resources, forms, and contact information for those in crisis. We’ve also recognized the importance of accessible training, like short videos for law enforcement, to help them understand the basics of the law, especially since it’s not feasible for us to visit every agency in person.
Another challenge is that we’re the only ones in King County with a dedicated ERPO unit. This creates an imbalance, as other regions in the state may not have the same level of resources or knowledge about how to implement ERPOs effectively. This disparity makes it hard to ensure consistent enforcement across the state. We also hear from people all the time—smart, informed individuals—who still aren’t aware of the law, which shows there’s a real need for greater outreach, perhaps through a public ad campaign.
We’ve also worked hard to address cases involving self-harm. One key step we’ve taken is to ensure that petitions for individuals in crisis can be sealed from the public record. This helps protect privacy, especially when the issue is suicidality with no other threats to others. It’s important to us that these sensitive cases are handled with discretion.
Education about warning signs of potential violence is another area we’re focused on. While most people recognize signs of self-harm, there’s less awareness of behaviors linked to threats against others. We believe it’s essential to teach the public how to identify these early signs—such as when someone is fixated on firearms or exhibiting concerning ideations—so intervention can happen before things escalate.
Finally, we see a gap in how behavioral health evaluations are followed up. Although the law allows for court-ordered evaluations, there’s no mechanism in place to ensure that treatment recommendations are followed through. We agree that this is a crucial step in addressing the root causes of the crisis, but without proper funding and structure, it’s difficult to close the loop. We’re hopeful that with some of the federal funding coming in, we can start addressing these gaps in behavioral health services.
What advice would you give to other jurisdictions that are starting to implement their ERPO law or want to strengthen the process?
If we could offer advice to other jurisdictions implementing or strengthening their ERPO laws, it would be to start by making sure you’re tracking everything. Early on, we didn’t realize how important it was to keep detailed stats and records of all the cases, especially as orders approach expiration. You need a process in place for checking in with law enforcement or family members about whether orders are due for renewal. In Washington State, these orders expire by themselves after a certain time, and we learned by trial and error that follow-up is crucial to prevent any gaps in the process. Having an advocate who assists with this outreach has been key for us.
It’s also important to categorize cases based on the type of threat—whether it’s to self-harm, to others, or a combination of both. This helps us understand the types of cases we’re seeing and informs where we need to focus our outreach. For example, are we reaching the right groups like crisis intervention professionals, family doctors, or community organizations? We use this data to pinpoint where more education or intervention is needed.
In addition, having a point person in each police jurisdiction is vital. In our county, with multiple jurisdictions, we realized early on how much time can be lost without clear lines of communication. You need someone to coordinate and ensure that law enforcement is on the same page, and to establish a system for best practices. A team effort is crucial—having prosecutors who can work directly with law enforcement and advocates is key to making the system work effectively. Spreading awareness about the law and its effectiveness is also crucial, especially early on, so that law enforcement knows when and how to use it.
Finally, tracking data is not only important for managing cases but also for research. As we’ve learned from our work in King County, it’s valuable to compare our local data with what’s happening in other parts of the state and across the country. This research helps inform improvements and gives us a broader understanding of how the law is being applied in different contexts.
About Kimberly Wyatt
Kimberly Wyatt is a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and has worked on cases involving domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and other crimes of violence. Since 2018, she has been part of the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit. In this role, she advises law enforcement and families on all aspects of Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In 2023, Kim was selected as a subject matter expert for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions grant from the Department of Justice on Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In 2023, she was selected to serve as a member of the Washington State Byrne SCIP Advisory Board. In 2022, she was appointed to the Illinois State Firearms Restraining Order Commission. Kim has also testified before the United States Senate-Committee on the Judiciary, regarding Extreme Risk Protection Orders (2019 and again in 2021). Kim is also the co-author of a Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) publication: Practitioners’ Perspective on Extreme Risk Protection Orders, June 2020. Kim received her B.A. from, Pepperdine University, and her J.D. from, Seattle University School of Law.
About Shaya Calvo
Shaya Calvo is a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and has been in the office since 1995. He has tried over 100 felony jury trials involving domestic violence, homicide, torture, rape, other crimes of violence, and felony theft related crimes including burglary, identity theft and car theft. He was chair of King County’s Car Theft Initiative from its inception in 2005 to 2008, which was responsible for a 63 percent reduction in car theft, and he also served as chair of the King County Drug Court Program. He is currently part of the Domestic Violence Regional Enforcement Unit where his focus is on Extreme Risk Protection Order investigations and firearms compliance cases against high-risk domestic violence offenders. He has conducted several trainings on Extreme Risk Protection Orders at the state and national level.