New York court rules on hearsay in extreme risk protection case

A New York State Supreme Court has ruled on the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a case involving a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (TERPO) against an individual identified as R.L.M. The decision, issued on July 28, 2026, by Justice Jonathan G. Schopf, impacts how evidence is evaluated in future cases under New York's Red Flag Law, which allows authorities to seek orders to prevent individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

The ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how hearsay statements are treated in extreme risk protection hearings, which are designed to quickly assess whether an individual poses a danger. The outcome affects not only the parties involved in this case but also future cases where similar evidence is presented.

Background

The case, New York State Police v. R.L.M., arose from a petition filed by the New York State Police seeking a TERPO against R.L.M. under New York's Red Flag Law. This law allows law enforcement to petition the court for an order to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or others.

On June 24, 2026, a temporary order was granted, and a final hearing was set for July 7, 2026. However, R.L.M. failed to appear at the hearing, prompting the court to proceed without him. The police presented evidence through the testimony of Trooper Lauren Russell, who expressed concerns about R.L.M.'s mental state based on her observations and interactions with him.

Despite the absence of R.L.M., the court was required to assess the evidence presented by the police. The case raised questions about the admissibility of certain statements made by R.L.M. that were not directly heard by Trooper Russell but were relayed to her by other officers and individuals.

The Ruling

The court ruled that the police had met their burden of proof to issue a Final Extreme Risk Protection Order (FERPO) based on Trooper Russell's credible testimony. However, the court also addressed the issue of hearsay evidence, particularly regarding a sworn statement from Trooper Eldred, which contained an alleged statement made by R.L.M. that he did not want to live anymore.

The court stated, "the court must be able to make findings, under a clear and convincing standard."

Justice Schopf emphasized that while hearsay is not automatically inadmissible, it must meet certain criteria to be considered valid evidence. He noted that the CPL §710.30 disclosure, which was a sworn affidavit from Trooper Eldred, was deemed inadmissible as hearsay for the purposes of the hearing. The court found that the hearsay statements did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required in such cases.

The ruling clarified that the court could not rely solely on hearsay evidence to justify the issuance of a FERPO. Justice Schopf pointed out that the law requires clear and convincing evidence, which is a high standard in civil cases. He stated, "Just because a statement is hearsay, does not render it inadmissible. However, hearsay is only admissible if there is an exception to the hearsay rule or if the Federal and New York State Constitutions require such admission."

Impact

This decision has significant implications for future extreme risk protection hearings in New York. By clarifying the treatment of hearsay evidence, the ruling sets a standard that requires courts to carefully evaluate the admissibility of statements made outside of direct testimony. This could affect how law enforcement agencies prepare their cases and the types of evidence they present in court.

The ruling emphasizes the need for direct evidence or credible testimony to support claims made in extreme risk protection cases. It highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals' rights are protected while also addressing public safety concerns. The decision may lead to more rigorous standards for evidence in future hearings, potentially impacting the outcomes of such cases.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether R.L.M. plans to appeal the decision. However, the ruling sets a precedent that may influence similar cases in the future. The court's clarification on hearsay evidence could prompt legislative discussions on how to handle such evidence in extreme risk protection proceedings.