Washington, DC
Sarah Connell is an Assistant Attorney General for the District of Columbia and handles all Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) cases in the Office. Tara Zeiss is a Supervising Attorney at the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project who represents survivors in ERPO and Civil Protection Order cases, making the nonprofit the first and only in DC to provide support to residents seeking ERPOs. This is a likely contributor to the unique trend in DC where the majority of ERPOs in recent years were filed by residents as opposed to law enforcement, unlike most states.
What roles do the Office of the Attorney General and the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project play in Washington DC’s ERPO process, and how do you coordinate your efforts?
Sarah Connell: The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) was involved from the outset of the ERPO legislation, contributing to its development and playing a key role in drafting protocols for implementation. The law designates the OAG to provide investigative support and intervene on the government’s behalf when needed.
ERPO petitions can be filed online or in person at the DC Superior Court. Once a petition is filed, the court notifies relevant parties, including OAG. I ensure Tara receives the information, and together, we decide who is best suited to assist the petitioner based on the case details.
For law enforcement or mental health professionals, I often draft petitions on their behalf. For instance, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers may consult their internal Gun Recovery Unit, which refers them to me. I access police records, draft the petition, and file it remotely after reviewing it with the officer. Similarly, for mental health professionals, I streamline the process to reduce their administrative burden and work with the attorneys in OAG’s Mental Health Section who often handle cases initiated by mental health professionals.
Tara primarily handles petitions involving intimate partner violence, while I focus on other cases, though we often collaborate. Our goal is to simplify the process for petitioners.
Tara Zeiss: DC Volunteer Lawyers Project screens all clients for ERPO eligibility, especially those already seeking Civil Protection Orders (CPOs) with firearm risks. A lot of our clients who have already filed a CPO, tend to be dealing with some serious risks involving a firearm. In those cases, I advise clients on the pros and cons of filing an ERPO and then the client decides from there whether or not to file. If after hearing all of their options the survivor decides she would like the additional protection of an ERPO, I help them file the petition and represent them at the ERPO hearing as well as their CPO hearing which usually happens at the same time.
There’s a lot of reasons why an ERPO might not be a good fit or the survivor might not be interested. But we screen almost everyone. In addition to the cases that the court sends our way, referrals also come directly from DC SAFE, a local non-profit domestic violence agency and crisis shelter in DC. If a firearm component is flagged, I consult with the client to determine if an ERPO is appropriate.
Sarah and I coordinate informally, frequently sharing updates on active ERPOs. Once a case is filed, we work with law enforcement to locate respondents and gather evidence like police reports, criminal records, and body-worn camera footage. Sarah can directly access some evidence, like body-worn footage, which could be very difficult for me to acquire and introduce in a case, resulting in significant delays.
ERPOs highlight the firearm issue in ways other processes don’t. They ensure attention, enforcement, and a focus on preventing gun violence, whether the threat is to oneself, a partner, or the community.
Who are the various stakeholders involved in the ERPO process?
Sarah Connell: It’s a broad group of stakeholders, starting with the police. MPD is heavily involved––its officers serve as petitioners, refer cases, and serve ERPOs. Up until recently, only the MPD could file and serve these orders, but the law has since expanded that authority. Within MPD, I frequently work with the Office of Intelligence, which handles threats reported across the district, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force for cases involving more serious threats.
The courts and judges are, of course, central to the process, as are domestic violence organizations, and the medical community. Mental health professionals may act as petitioners, but they’re also involved when mental health records are needed, which requires navigating specific processes. Tara and I also act as stakeholders for one another—our collaboration is essential.
Since the law now allows other sworn law enforcement agencies in DC to file ERPOs, I’ve been reaching out to agencies like the Capitol Police and the Housing Authority. While they’ve expressed interest, they’re still working through their bureaucratic processes, and I hope they’ll eventually request training.
Tara Zeiss: Much of our engagement overlaps, but I’d add that the Superior Court’s clerk’s office plays a role—they often reach out to us directly when petitions are filed, as DC is small enough that they know who we are. Recently, Sarah and I helped train new judges in the Domestic Violence Division, which hears ERPO cases.
We’ve also provided extensive training to the domestic violence community, including DC SAFE and the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. I regularly receive referrals from DC SAFE. Recently, we’ve started focusing on engaging medical professionals. For example, we spoke with a group of hospital social workers to build awareness and encourage referrals. Now that law enforcement and the domestic violence community are actively filing ERPOs, we’re turning our efforts toward involving medical professionals more consistently.
What supports are in place for non-law enforcement petitioners, such as family members, intimate partners, and mental health professionals, to apply for an ERPO?
Tara Zeiss: The main issue is awareness—many people who are eligible to file an ERPO don’t even know the law exists. When we conduct trainings, it’s common to hear, “I’ve never heard of this law.” Even terms like “red flag law” are unfamiliar to most. That lack of awareness is a significant barrier, especially compared to other states where ERPO filings are much more common.
That said, there are supports in place. The clerk’s office is a key resource; many non-law enforcement petitioners first learn about ERPOs by visiting the clerk’s office or finding information online and proceed to file on their own. For example, this year I handled at least two ERPOs where domestic violence survivors found the information online and filed because the respondent had a gun and made threats to the petitioner. At DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, we actively screen for ERPO eligibility and provide direct help with filings, making resources accessible and offering legal advice on how ERPOs can help our clients.
Sarah Connell: I collaborate within OAG with our Mental Health Section as they conduct outreach and training to mental health professionals in DC about ERPOs.
Looking at the timeline since Tara started, the number of ERPOs has significantly increased. Supervisors at the clerk’s office often hear about gun-related issues and refer people to us by giving our contact information. Being a small district helps with this awareness. However, we hope more MPD officers will engage in the process. Currently, many guns they encounter are illegal and get seized, so there might not be as much concern about the individuals regaining access to firearms.
One concern I often raise is about cases involving individuals from outside DC. For example, someone might be arrested here on a gun charge, but their pre-trial release conditions—such as a prohibition on firearm possession—aren’t entered into the National Crime Information Center database. This means they could potentially buy a gun in another state, like Virginia. While a felony conviction would prohibit them from owning a firearm nationwide, pre-trial conditions often don’t get the same recognition, leaving gaps in enforcement. This highlights why ERPOs can be an essential tool, even when there’s a parallel criminal case. They address firearm access more directly and consistently than some criminal processes.
What’s most useful day-to-day is building relationships with the people actually implementing the process. So much of our work involves quick, practical problem-solving—like addressing what happens when someone is about to go home with a firearm.
How has the online availability of ERPO petition forms and information helped in the usage of this law?
Sarah Connell: It has helped, but it’s not without its challenges. For instance, older petitioners often struggle with the online system. It’s funny—most of the police officers who file online are under 30, while those my age tend to have a harder time figuring it out. I can often guess someone’s age based on whether they filed online or in person.
Beyond that, there are other barriers, like language accessibility, but DC has done a lot to make the process more user-friendly.
Tara Zeiss: Overall, the process is relatively accessible, and the petition itself is straightforward and easy to understand. That said, even when someone successfully completes and files the petition on their own, there may be times when the client and I decide that we need to supplement their petition with additional information that is important for the court to know. This might involve adding details based on statutory factors or refining the language to focus on what’s relevant.
It’s a common issue with self-filed petitions, whether for civil protection orders or ERPOs. People tend to include information that isn’t relevant for an ERPO. But my clients don’t find the form itself difficult. It does need updating to reflect recent statutory changes, but otherwise I do think it’s useful.
How do ERPOs serve as a helpful tool in domestic violence contexts? What are the circumstances in which you are seeing ERPOs being most commonly used in DC?
Tara Zeiss: ERPOs are an important tool in our toolkit, but it’s not the whole tool kit. There is this idea that some people have that ERPOs are going to replace CPOs. That’s not going to happen. CPOs offer a wide range of relief, and ERPOs usually complement them rather than replace them. I’ve had one or two cases where someone doesn’t need or want a CPO or there already is one, and then an ERPO might make sense, but for the most part, we provide clients with information and advice to make a decision about when they should file an ERPO along with a CPO, not instead of one. While a CPO prohibits firearm possession during its duration, the federal firearm ban doesn’t always apply in every domestic violence case, creating gaps in protection. ERPOs fill these gaps by specifically targeting firearm access, drawing focused attention to this critical safety issue.
In DC, the CPO process doesn’t adequately address firearm relinquishment—it’s vague and lacks follow-through. Judges issue a warning, but there’s little enforcement. With an ERPO, however, the firearm component is taken much more seriously. Police explicitly ask about guns during service, and even court staff treat ERPO cases with heightened caution, such as involving marshals for safety during hearings. For clients, this added layer of security is invaluable.
In domestic violence cases, ERPOs are most commonly used when there are recurring threats of harm to themselves or to their partner or when there’s credible evidence that the respondent owns a gun. Threats range from explicit statements like “I’m going to shoot you” to a respondent sending them pictures of a gun. Clients often want to pursue ERPOs because they suspect the respondent has not surrendered their weapons despite existing firearm possession prohibitions.
Sarah Connell: In addition to the domestic violence cases that Tara described, in my experience, the circumstances leading to ERPO filings fall into a few categories:
- Mental Health-Related Situations: Mental health professionals or others contact us about individuals experiencing suicidal ideation or paranoia. For example, combat veterans with legal firearms may report feeling under threat, such as believing their home is being invaded. Police responding to these situations often discover the individual’s access to guns and file an ERPO.
- Threats Made to Public Figures: In DC, people from outside the city often make threats against politicians or other figures. If these individuals have legal guns in their home state (frequently Virginia), we can work with local and DC police to file an ERPO and confiscate those firearms.
- Family Member Concerns: Relatives occasionally file ERPOs for loved ones who have legal firearms but are displaying concerning behavior, such as suicidal ideation or violent threats.
ERPOs highlight the firearm issue in ways other processes don’t. They ensure attention, enforcement, and a focus on preventing gun violence, whether the threat is to oneself, a partner, or the community.
There is sometimes a concern raised that ERPO cases may be dangerous and confrontational for law enforcement. Has that been your experience working with MPD?
Sarah Connell: Not at all. The officers who handle these cases are very experienced, and this is just part of their regular duties. Based on body camera footage I’ve reviewed, service usually begins in a calm and methodical way. Typically, two officers—often sergeants—knock on the respondent’s door and explain, “We have this paperwork; it says you need to come to court. Oh, by the way, do you have any guns?” It’s kept very low-key at the start.
In some instances, the situation can escalate, but they often begin service with even less direct methods, like calling the respondent first to say, “Hey, we have some paperwork to deliver—can we stop by?” Overall, I haven’t heard many complaints or reports of danger during ERPO service. Police in DC are already operating in an environment with widespread illegal guns, so they’re accustomed to dealing with high-risk scenarios.
Tara Zeiss: I agree. Many CPOs in DC also involve firearm violence, and police are technically required to ask for firearm relinquishment during those cases as well. Based on what I’ve seen, serving regular CPOs may actually be more dangerous than serving ERPOs, simply because there are so many more of them, and they often arise in volatile domestic violence situations.
What are some challenges that DC faces with the implementation of this law and what are some opportunities for improvement?
Tara Zeiss: I think the biggest challenge is education. There’s a significant gap in awareness, particularly within the medical community. Medical professionals could play a critical role in filing ERPOs, but many in DC don’t seem to know about this law at all.
Beyond that, ensuring law enforcement, particularly agencies besides MPD, understands when and how to use ERPOs is also an issue. A simple fact sheet often isn’t enough for people to grasp the practical utility of ERPOs. Even with a clear understanding, it’s difficult to interpret the law when there’s no case law to guide its application. Having resources like Sarah or myself available for fact-specific advice is helpful, but not always accessible to everyone.
Another key challenge is compliance. There’s no mechanism in DC to ensure follow-up after an ERPO is issued. Other jurisdictions, like Washington State, have compliance calendars and hearings to confirm that firearms have been surrendered. In DC, after an ERPO is granted, we hope the police handle the surrender, but if the respondent denies having a gun or fails to comply, there’s no real recourse aside from pursuing contempt, which hasn’t been used in ERPO cases here.
Sarah Connell: In DC, the officers responsible for handling ERPOs often take on this responsibility in addition to their already demanding workloads. Recognizing current resource constraints, it would be helpful to designate someone within the police department to focus on ERPO coordination when feasible, even if it’s just a part-time role. Some jurisdictions, like Fairfax County, have a detective assigned as an ERPO coordinator. A similar system in DC could streamline processes and improve efficiency.
When we conduct trainings, it’s common to hear, “I’ve never heard of this law.” Even terms like “red flag law” are unfamiliar to most. That lack of awareness is a significant barrier, especially compared to other states where ERPO filings are much more common.
What advice would you give to a jurisdiction that is wanting to get started or improve their ERPO implementation process?
Tara Zeiss: My advice is to start by being comfortable with uncertainty. As a lawyer, you often want case law, precedent, or clear guidelines, but ERPOs don’t offer much of that yet. You really have to just try cases, see how they go, and be prepared to explain to a judge why you believe a situation fits under the statute. It’s a process of trial and error, figuring out what works and what doesn’t.
Connecting with others experienced in ERPOs is invaluable. For us, having Sarah’s expertise has been a huge help. We’ve learned so much by talking to policy experts and practitioners in other jurisdictions. Even now, after over a year and a half, we’re still learning the nuances of how ERPOs fit within DC’s system. It’s about testing the boundaries, identifying what facts fit, and understanding evidentiary rules through experience.
Another crucial piece is community and connections. Building strong working relationships with judges, clerks, law enforcement, and other stakeholders is essential. Sarah and I often attend temporary ERPO hearings, even just to observe, which has helped judges and clerks become familiar with us. Those relationships make it easier to collaborate and solve problems in real time.
Sarah Connell: I completely agree—it’s all trial and error. But I’d emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. This isn’t just about having buy-in at the leadership level, though that’s important for policy alignment. What’s most useful day-to-day is building relationships with the people actually implementing the process. So much of our work involves quick, practical problem-solving—like addressing what happens when someone is about to go home with a firearm.
It’s also helpful to study jurisdictions similar to your own. The challenges and solutions in a rural area, for example, might not apply to a dense urban environment like DC. For jurisdictions where the rules of evidence apply in ERPO cases, I’d suggest connecting with us because that’s a significant focus of our work. Finding places with similar legal or procedural contexts can provide guidance that’s directly applicable.
About Sarah Connell
Sarah Connell is an Assistant Attorney General with the Domestic Violence and Special Victims Section of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. In the past seventeen years, she has conducted hundreds of trials in DC Superior Court, prosecuting criminal violations of protection orders, indecent exposure cases, and juvenile cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and more. She also handles Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) cases and serves as the Section’s point of contact for all ERPO training and policy matters. In 2017 and 2018, Sarah completed a six-month detail as a Special Assistant United States Attorney at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, during which she prosecuted a variety of domestic violence offenses. In the past, she has served as a Senior Staff Attorney at Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE), and a Skadden Fellow representing domestic violence survivors at the DC Legal Aid Society. She has also worked at the Office on Violence Against Women in the US Department of Justice and at a California domestic violence shelter.
About Tara Zeiss
Tara Zeiss is a Supervising Attorney who oversees a project on Domestic Violence and Firearms at the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project. Tara’s project focuses on representing survivors who have suffered gun violence or were threatened by gun violence. Her representation focuses on Civil Protection Order and Extreme Risk Protection Order cases. Tara also provides representation in a limited number of family law cases where a child custody order or divorce decree would provide continued stability and violence prevention. Tara joined DCVLP in 2022 as an Equal Justice Works Fellow, sponsored by Crowell & Moring Foundation. Originally from California, Tara graduated with her J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2022 and spent her time in law school working with survivors of domestic violence at a variety of organizations. Tara received her B.A. from University of California, Los Angeles.