ME. "Substantial Threats" Family.
snipped for focus
@MyBelle
First, pls note, I'm NOT addressing specifics of this tragic series of events but am speaking to the point about "family members" & this ME. statute.*
OP is correct, in the sense that a family member is not explicitly authorized under provisions of THIS statute (personally or thru counsel) to DIRECTLY ask a judge to order surrender of weapons..."
LE is the channel for making that request, contingent on a medical assessment.
Under this ME. law an LEO "may rely on information provided by a third party informant"** (could be a fam member) about ---
"the informant's recent personal observations of or conversations with a person, that the person may be mentally ill and that due to that condition the person poses a likelihood of serious harm as defined in section 3801, subsection 4‑A, paragraph A, B or C..." **
That is, LEO "may rely on" such info if LEO "confirms that the informant has reason to believe" there's a "likelihood of serious harm."***
If LEO has probable cause to believe person poses a "likelihood of serious harm" ** LEO may take the person into protective custody, deliver to medical practioner for assessment,
Then other procedures are triggered: med. assessment is submitted to judge, who makes decision "to endorse or not endorse"* it, transmits decision to LE, LE notifies person of requirement to surrender weapons, & of right to hearing w'in 14 days, etc.
IDK what the family member(s) actually said to LE in this case and will not speculate on what they told MSM about what they told LE or about the accuracy of what any reporters wrote.
Just speaking generally about some of the statute's procedural elements.
If a family member RECORDS (on cell phone?) a person's actions (brandishing firearms) & statements (threats, rants, raves, whatever) and provides that & further info to LE, imo jmo moo seems LE would find that helpful both in presenting info to med. practicioner assessing person and to judge deciding whether to endorse the med. assessment that "the person poses a likelihood of serious harm." **
Good, bad, or terrible (not giving an opinion about which), that* is the yellow flag statute the ME legislature enacted.
Like virtually any other statute on any subject, it cannot successfully address every circumstance its sponsors, supporters, or some voters & residents hoped it would. If only, sigh.
BTW, OTHER OPTIONS for concerned family?
Another poster (was that you,
@BeginnerSleuther ?) noted there may be alternative civil remedies for a family member to pursue, in ME and/or some other states.
I.E., filing for a civil protective order against the weapon holder or seeking to have the person involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital.
________________________________________
Links to ME. statutes & some excerpts.
* §3862-A. Protection from substantial threats
Title 34-B, §3862-A: Protection from substantial threats
**"§3862. Protective custody" (When LEO may use)
"When formulating probable cause, the law enforcement officer may rely upon information provided by a 3rd-party informant if the officer confirms that the informant has reason to believe, based upon the informant's recent personal observations of or conversations with a person, that the person may be mentally ill and that due to that condition the person poses a likelihood of serious harm as defined in section 3801, subsection 4‑A, paragraph A, B or C..."
*** §3801. Definitions (re Mental Health)
"4. Likelihood of serious harm...."
"A. A substantial risk of physical harm to the person as manifested by recent threats of, or attempts at, suicide or serious self-inflicted harm;
"B. A substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by recent homicidal or violent behavior or by recent conduct placing others in reasonable fear of serious physical harm;..."