|
Aguila Blanca, True there is a big difference as far as due process when seizure can be made on the basis of an ex parte application instead of a noticed hearing. I tend to think that something like a red flag law is needed, but that the standard for ex parte seizure should be higher than a preponderance of the evidence. It is just too easy to meet the burden when the application is unopposed.
I don't know how to satisfy the need to protect a truly threatened person by raising the standard of proof at the ex part to a clear and convincing standard, but perhaps keeping with preponderance of the evidence, while requiring a state appointed attorney to be appointed to challenge the ex parte petition and require that there be a hearing. Without a hearing it is too easy for an attorney to craft a declaration and the Court, as well as the ombudsman I propose, are deprived of the opportunity to weigh the demeanor of the Petitioner and their witnesses, or to cross examine them.
|