A selection of passages from the Saratoga County, New York trial court decision authored by Judge Jonathan Schopf in the case Anonymous School Dist. v. Anonymous, issued about a week ago, is presented below.
The matter originated with a Petition for a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (TERPO) filed under New York State’s Red Flag Law. The respondent is a thirteen-year-old individual who is the focus of the petition and related proceedings.
On June 16, 2026, a Petition was submitted seeking the issuance of the Temporary Order to bar the Respondent from purchasing, possessing, or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle, or shotgun. The petition also sought a “no-knock” search warrant that could be executed at any hour without notice to the occupant’s authority or purpose, directed at properties tied to the Respondent’s father and to the Respondent’s mother, and the seizure of any firearms located there pursuant to such warrant.
To support the Petition, the district submitted the Affidavit of L., a teacher’s aide; an Affidavit from the school district’s superintendent; and a printed record of the Respondent’s disciplinary referrals for the current school year. The Petition’s sole basis for the requested search warrant was that on June 16, 2026, while the Respondent and another student were in a hallway, the Respondent told the other student: “I can’t wait to shoot up the school.” When questioned by an administrator, the Respondent initially denied making the remark but later admitted saying it.
For the reasons stated below, the Court denied the TERPO application and scheduled a hearing for a Final Extreme Risk Protection Order (FERPO) on June 23, 2026.
At the outset, the Court found that the request for a no-knock search warrant lacked evidentiary support in the Petition sufficient to justify the relief. The TERPO application sought authorization to search the homes of both the Respondent’s mother and father, and to seize any firearms found there, with execution of the warrant at any time and without notice of the officers’ authority or purpose—commonly known as a “no-knock” warrant. The standard for issuing a search warrant under CPLR Article 63-A is governed by the Criminal Procedure Law.
The supporting affidavit from the superintendent appears to bolster the request by noting that the Respondent’s father is known in the community as a licensed firearms dealer, which could indicate that the student has access to weapons at home. The affidavit further states that, based on over 26 years as an educator, the student’s remark to a peer, and the student’s access to and familiarity with firearms, the student presents a danger to himself and others and should not be permitted to use or possess firearms or be in a home where he could access them. …
The Respondent and his parents are not convicted felons, and the Respondent has not been charged with any felony or other crime, despite the allegations contained in the Application.
The Court likewise finds no evidence that the firearms lawfully owned and secured by the Respondent’s father were actually available to the Respondent. Rather, the Application makes conclusory statements about the Respondent’s access to firearms because his father holds a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and runs a home-based firearms business. The Court notes that the New York Safe Storage Act, along with regulations governing FFL dealers, require secure storage of any firearms and ammunition present at the father’s residence. {Notably, at the hearing, the father’s testimony was uncontradicted in stating that the Respondent has no access to firearms and that the father voluntarily allowed Saratoga County Sheriff’s Deputies to verify that all firearms were properly secured.}
It is a fundamental principle that constitutional rights are central to our legal framework, and this extends to the search and seizure of an individual’s property. … “No-knock warrants are a drastic measure. Given the severity of the statute, it is incumbent upon police officials to undertake a thorough and precise investigation when building the supporting facts and affidavits; doing less would constitute not only a civil liberties violation but also a fraud on the court.”
Beyond the truthful assertions confirmed at the hearing—that the Respondent’s father is a federally licensed firearms dealer—there was no substantial support offered in the Petition or at the hearing to justify seizing the business (or personal) property of a non-party. There was also no basis for the speculative and conclusory statements that the Respondent possessed or was familiar with firearms….
The Court thus denies the FERPO after the June 23, 2026 hearing for multiple reasons. First, the Respondent is thirteen years old…
The authority of a court adjudicating a Red Flag Law petition is limited to separating the respondent from firearms by issuing a TERPO or FERPO. In this instance, and in most cases involving minors, that authority is further constrained because the Red Flag Law does not bar firearms from a home if those guns belong to someone else. It is illegal in New York for a person younger than 16 to handle any firearm, and the state also prohibits possession by anyone under 16. In short, prior to any TERPO petition, the Respondent was legally barred from possessing any firearm, and the Court could not grant any relief beyond what the statute already imposes.
There is an exception for possession of a shotgun or rifle by an individual holding a valid hunting license, with the youngest licensee being 12. The Court asked whether the Respondent possessed a state-issued hunting license; the answer was no. Therefore, the statutory regime imposes a broad prohibition on ownership, purchase, or possession of firearms by the Respondent. Given this comprehensive legal framework, the Court concurs with Justice Schreibman that pursuing an ERPO against a child under eleven (11) or under sixteen (16) who has not been issued a hunting license is unwarranted.
The Respondent was taken into custody by the Saratoga County Sheriff for a mandatory psychiatric evaluation and transported in the back of a patrol vehicle to the hospital for assessment—alone and without his parents’ knowledge or consent. He was later brought to court to determine whether he should be deprived of guns he could not legally possess anyway. For a thirteen-year-old, such an experience is likely to be frightening and traumatic. The Court questions how a TERPO against a minor under sixteen could be justified when the statute offers no resolution that would further public or the child’s welfare.
It appears that the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Office may have believed the Respondent could have a mental health issue, given that he was taken into custody for an involuntary mental health evaluation, a step that the authorities have no lawful authority to take unless they conclude that the subject “appears to be mentally ill and is behaving in a manner likely to cause serious harm to himself or others.”
At the FERPO hearing, apart from testimony from the principal noting that the Respondent left campus that day with the school’s Resource Officer due to concerns about mental health stability with homicidal ideation, the Petitioner offered no medical evidence regarding the Respondent’s mental health, neither from clinicians nor from family or community members familiar with the Respondent….
As the Court stated on the record, the Respondent has an extensive disciplinary history this academic year, with twenty-seven (27) referrals in total. As testified on cross-examination, none of these referrals, other than the one at issue, describes a physical threat to another person or to a facility, and none could be construed as such upon review.
The referrals range from tardiness to class, failing to complete assignments, to making highly inappropriate remarks and taunting peers and teachers. On their face, these records might suggest a child who constantly challenges authority and disrespects others, but none of them provide evidentiary support for the present application. They do, however, underscore that the Respondent is a vulnerable child who requires ongoing guidance, discipline, and structure from his parents and the community institutions—such as his school.
{It appears that the Respondent’s mother and the principal testified that the parents may not have received prior disciplinary referrals this year. It also seems the issue of not receiving these referrals, as well as the Respondent’s school behavior, was discussed with the principal and the Respondent’s parents the prior year, though the precise details are unclear. The current-year referrals may not have reached the parents due to the Respondent not having any suspensions this academic year.
The mother and the principal testified that they share a good relationship and that the school has supported the Respondent in addressing behavioral challenges. The Court questions whether the TERPO proceedings could jeopardize that therapeutic and supportive relationship.} …
The Court cannot predict with certainty what impact a FERPO would have on the Respondent. Likewise, it cannot anticipate how the Respondent might mature from a relatively young child into an adult who makes better life choices and contributes positively to society. The Court finds that the best interests of the Respondent—and potentially society—are served by providing him with opportunities to grow without a lingering penalty. The current statutory sealing provision … contains five express exemptions that would accompany a FERPO for the Respondent for life if a FERPO were issued.
Appellate courts have recognized that, although a FERPO is sealed when it expires, its potential consequences endure: “as the ERPO remains accessible to New York courts, police agencies, gun-licensing authorities, and prospective employers of law enforcement personnel, along with related ramifications,” including reputational consequences beyond the term of the order.
Every responsible adult involved in such decisions must consider the possible consequences for the minor if a FERPO is entered. At minimum, had a FERPO been issued, the Respondent would have carried the knowledge that the educational system and the court labeled him as a danger—potentially a “school shooter”—and that stigma could shadow him throughout his schooling and beyond, given the order’s lifelong implications. The Respondent’s mother testified that the School Resource Officers told her a markedly different account from what is presented today, suggesting the inquiry into the incident may have centered on a Roblox game featuring a simulated school shooting scenario. The mother believed the investigation would be closed and her son would face consequences only for discussing the game’s content.
Taking the pleadings and record as a whole, the Court concludes that the school district did not carry its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent should be subject to a FERPO. The only testimony that was unequivocal and consistent with other submissions—and which did not require further corroboration—was the alleged statement to the principal after several rounds of questioning. The Court finds that this statement, made after the event and to the principal, is, in context, hearsay and not supported by first-hand witnesses who could testify about the circumstances in which it was made.
Two equally plausible explanations exist for a thirteen-year-old with an extensive disciplinary history to make such a confession: either the child is telling the truth, or he is confessing because it is convenient, possibly to protect another child who may have said the same thing. In the absence of direct testimony from the Respondent, the court treats the statement as an out-of-court assertion that remains uncertain and does not meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
