As the next state budget season quickly approaches (I know, doesn’t it seem like we just ended that last drama a week ago?), there’s been a fair amount of chatter about the future of courthouse security.
That talk kicked up a notch over the weekend when the Bakersfield Californian reported that the Judicial Council in January will consider shifting security control from sheriffs to a new branch force.
Council spokesman Lynn Holton said Monday that “there are no plans” to put the idea up for a vote in two months. “Our only plan,” she said in an email, “is to continue to work with the sheriffs for adequate funding and appropriate security standards.”
Was there a Kernel of truth in the Californian’s report?
That’s plenty of negotiating work by itself. The sheriffs say they’re not getting paid enough to cover the costs of adequate security. AOC leaders counter that the sheriffs’ costs are rising too fast.
The Legislature would have to approve any move to replace sheriff’s deputies with a new courtroom force, and there doesn’t seem to be much support among lawmakers for doing that, let alone among judges and the politically popular sheriffs.
The sheriffs, though, may take matters into their own hands. Nick Warner, a lobbyist for the California Sheriffs Association, said Monday that his members are cooking up their own plan to shift control of courthouse security funding directly to local sheriffs and courts.
“We’re going to put forth our own proposal,” Warner said. “We’re done playing defense.”
The spending and staffing would be controlled by a “strict, annual memorandum of understanding” drafted at the local level.
Expect to see legislation reflecting the proposal unveiled soon, he said.
— Cheryl Miller
The LA Superior Courts already have security guards and only ONE Sheriff deputy on duty, in case someone needs to be arrested. The alleged Security makes attorneys and court personnel go through the metal detectors unnecessarily thereby clogging up the long lines leading into the courthouses in LA COUNTY. LA County is as big as some states on the east coast. It is bigger than Road Island. But judicial paranoia has no boundry so everyone must be screened. Then there is the 9th floor, where another, much less vigilant pair or trio of real Sheriffs screen everyone again. Those paranoid judges on the 9th floor don't trust the security on the first floor. Judges are a dime a dozen as they come from attorneys. Why are we forcing the public to give up their first amendment rights just because they have to enter a courthouse and appear in court upon penalty of a warrant being issued against them. It is especially unnecessary for the court personnel and attorneys and jurors, all of whom have been pre-screened. This reminds me of the King of Spain who had a lisp. He changes the language, Castillian Spanish, from say besa to betha, so he wouldn't look or sound like an idiot. It seems we haven't come very far as a species after all.
Posted by: Brad Henschel, JD | November 17, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Why can we go into any other Government building, except the IRS that is, without giving up our 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, which the search of all of the public certainly is, but we have to give up those 4th amendment rights to enter a courthouse, which is the place where those rights are supposed to be protected? Talk about 1984 big brother. As for the sheriffs, who needs them? 30 low wage security guards equal one high paid Sheriff. IF someone needs to be arrested call the local police. Department store security guards do it all the time with thieves. Think about it, we go into malls all over this country and other stores with lots of people in them, no unreasonable search is needed. We have bought into the delusions of self-importance and paranoia of the courts. We need to get over it.
Posted by: Brad Henschel, JD | November 17, 2009 at 02:24 PM