@mcp1810: Thanks for your research, because it all proves my point and for using the term "probable cause" because I think it shows, that with all due respect, you do not understand the term.
In Brinegar v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court defines probable cause as "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime B]is being committed[/B].
Is being committed, NOT
might be committed. The majority opinion stated that this definition of probable cause "is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating [the] often opposing interests in safeguarding citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime and in giving fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection..."
So the use of "probable cause" in the laws you cited do not meet that test. They do not describe any behaviors, actions or facts that lead to a conclusion that a person has committed any crime, or has even threatened to commit a crime. So it is a misuse of the term. CT and OR list a bunch of past behaviors, which are a laundry list of psychological theories about prior behaviors violent people sometimes have.
They are not proof that someone has committed a crime, or even is about to. What they do not do is specifically define the crime or tort the person is being charged with. Some say, "specific facts."
What specific facts? A good law says what those specific facts need to be to meet the test of the law.
There are some clear departures from the Constitution and the common practice of law in all the red flag laws you cited.
- Presumption of innocence: This is a cornerstone of American justice, as well most legal systems in the world. You are innocent until proven guilty of an actual crime. Red flag laws say you are dangerous, which is not a crime, per se. And they say you are dangerous if a judge thinks you are dangerous, not because of anything specific that bears directly on your planning to commit a dangerous act.
- Full due process: The ability of a defendant to be present at the proceedings, confront his accusers, be represented by an attorney before a judgement has been made. Red flag laws do not provide any of these. There are exceptions for ex parte due process, but they are severely limited in out justice system. Red flag laws do not seem to limit ex parte very much at all. In fact, the make it difficult, and expensive, for someone who has been red flagged to have a fair hearing. I read that defending against a red flag can cost around $10,000 to $15,000, win or lose. All this for not having done anything!
- The determination of mental instability based on expert witnesses. Generally, any action taken against someone who is declared mentally unfit has to be preceded by an examination of the person by a psychological professional using standard assessment techniques. Red flag laws do not provide for this.
Add to that, these laws don't really protect the public. All they do is have the cops come take all the guns the person has
that they can find. It does not take other weapons. And if the subject is dangerous, it leaves him in a more agitated state. That is simple logic and common sense, not biased research.
If red flag laws worked, I will tell you something that would work better. We know that the people most likely to commit violent crimes are: People who have committed them before and people who are in gangs, especially people who are in drug-related gangs. Those kinds of people are many more times likely to commit violence than the mentally ill. Why don't we pass a law that that says that if you are in a gang and you have a previous conviction for violence, the cops can come raid you place and take all the guns. Why? Because there is no way that would fly in court and there would be a huge public outcry about "profiling." Well, red flag laws have the same problem.