A New Jersey appellate court has vacated an extreme risk protective order (FERPO) against R.O.R., 3rd, due to procedural and evidentiary issues. The court found that the order was not supported by sufficient evidence to prove that R.O.R. posed a significant danger to himself or others. This ruling has implications for how extreme risk protective orders are handled in the state.

The case, docket number A-3989-24, arose from a petition filed by Officer John McColgan of the Hamilton Township Police Department. McColgan sought a temporary extreme risk protective order (TERPO) against R.O.R. after receiving information from R.O.R.'s girlfriend, who reported that he had threatened to kill himself multiple times and had a history of alcohol abuse. The girlfriend also indicated that R.O.R. had recently left a rehabilitation facility and had taken a handgun from a safe before leaving the residence.

Following the issuance of the TERPO, a final hearing for the FERPO was delayed and ultimately held on June 27, 2025, nearly two and a half years after the initial petition. During the hearing, McColgan was the only witness to testify, and his statements were primarily based on what R.O.R.'s girlfriend had told him. R.O.R. did not testify or present any witnesses in his defense.

At the hearing, the court ultimately granted the FERPO, citing several factors that indicated R.O.R. posed a danger. However, R.O.R.'s attorney argued that the evidence presented was primarily hearsay and did not meet the legal standard required to issue a protective order. The attorney pointed out that the girlfriend's statements were not corroborated by any direct evidence.

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision and found that the ruling relied heavily on hearsay without sufficient corroboration. The court noted that while the girlfriend's statements were concerning, they did not provide a solid foundation for the FERPO. The court stated, "The State failed to satisfy the residuum requirement on respondent's on these factors," emphasizing that the evidence must be reliable and credible.

Furthermore, the appellate court highlighted that the trial court did not adequately consider R.O.R.'s current state at the time of the hearing. The court pointed out that the FERPO hearing should evaluate whether R.O.R. posed a danger at that specific moment, not just based on past incidents. The court stated, "By using the term 'poses' in the present tense, we conclude the Legislature intended that provision to relate solely to a respondent's dangerousness at the time of the hearing."

As a result, the appellate court vacated the FERPO and reinstated the TERPO, remanding the case for a new hearing before a different judge. The court noted, "In remanding this matter, we express no opinion on the merits of the FERPO application," indicating that the new hearing would allow for a fresh assessment of the evidence and circumstances surrounding R.O.R.

This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of adhering to procedural standards and ensuring that protective orders are based on reliable evidence. It also highlights the need for timely hearings in such cases, as delays can impact the assessment of an individual's current risk level.

Going forward, this decision may influence how courts handle extreme risk protective orders in New Jersey. It emphasizes the necessity for law enforcement and prosecutors to present corroborated evidence in such cases, ensuring that individuals' rights are protected while also addressing public safety concerns.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the case could be appealed further. However, the remand for a new hearing indicates that the legal process will continue to unfold in this matter.