Victims and potential victims of domestic violence deserve better than the horrific murder that ended the life of Carissa Larkin. Lawmakers in Olympia and courts throughout Washington must intensify measures to protect those who are deemed vulnerable.
In April, Larkin obtained a civil domestic violence protection order against Kyle Palmer, her former fiancé. “I am unsure of what Kyle is capable of but fear retaliation,” Larkin wrote in her petition.
On July 25, that fear was manifested as Palmer killed Larkin — and then himself — in the parking lot of her central Vancouver apartment complex. As Columbian reporter Jessica Prokop writes: “The mother of three was holding her 4-year-old son, who was grazed by a bullet. The child left a trail of blood behind him as he fled the grisly scene.”
The protection order prohibited Palmer from possessing firearms, but Clark County Superior Court officials never demanded that he surrender them. The reason for that is confusion over a 2022 ruling from the Washington Court of Appeals.
In a Kitsap County domestic violence case, Dwayne Allen Flannery had been ordered by a Kitsap County Superior Court judge to surrender his firearms in a domestic violence case. He argued that the order violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth amendments — protections against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.
The appeals court sided with Flannery, and in May 2023, the Clark County Superior Court bench stopped ordering people subject to civil protection orders to surrender their weapons.
In 2023, the Legislature passed House Bill 1715, outlining protections for domestic violence victims. But it did not specifically address the issues that arose from the Flannery decision.
Indeed, a judge may not violate the constitutional rights of a defendant — even if it seems sensible in the specific case. And approaching the issue from the angle of the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment adds complexity.
Derek Vanderwood, presiding judge in Clark County, said: “Our interpretation of Flannery is that a person can be legally restricted from possession (of) firearms, but their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights may be violated by the surrender process itself rather than by the restriction alone. We continue to order firearm restrictions, but have not entered the standalone order to surrender.”
That is akin to a police officer shouting at a fleeing suspect: “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘stop’ again.” It is a toothless approach that endangers our community and fails to adequately protect people who have the courage to seek help and have demonstrated to the court that they are at risk.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 8-1 ruling confirms “what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
Vanderwood said Clark County is discussing how that ruling impacts the surrender-of-firearms process. But he noted that the ruling is focused on the Second Amendment rather than the issues raised by the Flannery decision.
The situation demonstrates how constitutional rights often come into conflict. When that it the case, elected officials and judges must land on the side of common sense. And it is sensible to declare that Carissa Larkin and other victims of domestic violence deserve better from our system of laws and jurisprudence.
