Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - OT? Courthouse security

Hopefully some of you good folks can point me in the right direction, for information on a visitor's rights when going through courthouse security.

I travel a fair amount to do historic research--by train or car, to avoid TSA--but I still run into courthouse security regularly, and am trying to read up on my rights as a visitor, but my Googling has only turned up pro-security articles by courthouse staff, or kettle-type news articles lauding increased safety. :(

I dislike the bullying attitude of most security guards, but don't know how to react to it.

For example, at Richmond recently, I was cleared through security, but my wife was stopped because she had a bottle of Coke (not coke, LOL!) in her purse. So while I was waiting in the sterile area for her to go outside and "dispose" of it, i.e. drink it, one of the guards turned around, looked at me and asked if I had anything in the pocket of my cargo pants. He had already cleared me.

What were my legal rights? I have no clue, and would like to find a website that explains them.

My pocket was empty and I showed him by pressing it flat with my hand. But did he have a legal right to re-challenge me after he passed me, just because I happened to be within view? Would he have had a right to physically search my pocket if he didn't believe it was empty? This security information (http://www.co.henrico.va.us/clerk/pdfs/CourthouseOrder.pdf) about that specific courthouse indicates no: "shall submit to a personal search before being admitted." But I'd been admitted.

Yet if I'd refused to answer, I expect I would have been subject to very negative consequences for acting suspicious. That's how they make innocent people compliant--because people like me don't know their rights or how to apply them, and fear potential DYWTDGT threats ("do you want to do genealogy today?") after traveling hundreds of miles.

So I'm hoping to find a discussion about public building security experiences and rights in general, similar to the information on travel security rights here. Any ideas?

Courthouse rules, unfortunately, vary by jurisdiction. TSA has a "uniform standard" (forgive me while I choke on that) nationwide. For example, the county courthouse near me has a WTMD and X-ray for your belongings. They'll search your bag if anything looks suspicious, and break out the wand if you set off the WTMD, but that's about it.

At the federal courthouse in Denver, however, they have a MMW machine (supposedly without ATR), and refusing to go through it results in either a pat-down so thorough that it makes the TSA's seem light or denial of entry. A neighbor of mine claims that he was summoned to jury duty in the federal court in Denver and refused to go through the MMW or submit to a pat-down. As he tells the story, the judge was notified and sent word down that if he didn't complete screening and enter the courthouse for his summons, he would be brought through forcibly to stand trial for contempt. Give that story as much credence as you choose to--I find it a little fishy.

So, yeah, long story short, there is no "book" on courthouse procedures because courts, unlike airport checkpoints, are controlled at the local level.

In Massachusetts, the Probate courts were among the first to use metal detectors. Something about: "When you represent a criminal in court, you see a bad person at their best, when you represent a divorcing spouse, you see a good person at their worst."

My girlfriend, a Family Law Attorney, was trying to explain this to a Criminal Court Judge from Afghanistan.
"What, they try to bring knives to the Courtroom?" he asked.
"No, guns, they think their problems will be over if they shoot the Judge." my GF replied.

...

At the federal courthouse in Denver, however, they have a MMW machine (supposedly without ATR), and refusing to go through it results in either a pat-down so thorough that it makes the TSA's seem light or denial of entry. A neighbor of mine claims that he was summoned to jury duty in the federal court in Denver and refused to go through the MMW or submit to a pat-down. As he tells the story, the judge was notified and sent word down that if he didn't complete screening and enter the courthouse for his summons, he would be brought through forcibly to stand trial for contempt. Give that story as much credence as you choose to--I find it a little fishy.
...

I'd be very interested if there is any high level precedent on cases such s this. All of the "administrative search" cases for airports seem to rest in part on the fact that individuals who don't want to be searched can simply walk away. The jury duty scenario involves someone who cannot legally walk away. Here we have a person who is summoned to court, without cause to believe he has committed a crime warranting a search, and not having consented to a search. Is the federal court violating his 4th amendment rights? If not, why not?

Courthouse rules, unfortunately, vary by jurisdiction. TSA has a "uniform standard" (forgive me while I choke on that) nationwide. For example, the county courthouse near me has a WTMD and X-ray for your belongings. They'll search your bag if anything looks suspicious, and break out the wand if you set off the WTMD, but that's about it.

At the federal courthouse in Denver, however, they have a MMW machine (supposedly without ATR), and refusing to go through it results in either a pat-down so thorough that it makes the TSA's seem light or denial of entry. A neighbor of mine claims that he was summoned to jury duty in the federal court in Denver and refused to go through the MMW or submit to a pat-down. As he tells the story, the judge was notified and sent word down that if he didn't complete screening and enter the courthouse for his summons, he would be brought through forcibly to stand trial for contempt. Give that story as much credence as you choose to--I find it a little fishy.

So, yeah, long story short, there is no "book" on courthouse procedures because courts, unlike airport checkpoints, are controlled at the local level.

That brings up another interesting thing. Say you're called for jury duty and show up without an ID. A valid ID is now required to enter a federal courthouse, yet the government can't force you to have one.

In my experience they are more bullies than the TSA. I have had encounters at federal buildings, courthouses for jury duty, where I have my phone/keys out of my pocket, while in line, in the interest of moving along, but not showing an attitude of "get me the heck through here now!" and I've been told by the guards to wait to even do that!..

I'd be very interested if there is any high level precedent on cases such s this. All of the "administrative search" cases for airports seem to rest in part on the fact that individuals who don't want to be searched can simply walk away. The jury duty scenario involves someone who cannot legally walk away. Here we have a person who is summoned to court, without cause to believe he has committed a crime warranting a search, and not having consented to a search. Is the federal court violating his 4th amendment rights? If not, why not?

I started a discussion on this topic a while ago for exactly the same reasons you stated. I did a search a while back in which I pulled up a number of different courts' websites around the country. Virtually all of them had a page about jury duty. Many noted that jurors had to go through security, but none had anything about refusing to be screened -- i.e.: declining an administrative search. I agree -- if you are summoned for jury duty, you are not attempting to enter a courthouse voluntarily or as someone involved in a case. My non-lawyer view is that the summons states that you have to report to the courthouse at a certain date and time. I would assert that showing up at the door, but declining to go through security, meets this requirement. If the upstream story about Denver is accurate, this judge really would have set up a great "administrative search" ruling.

FYI, I found one article about a judge somewhere who brought his jurors into the courthouse through his private entrance because he believed that jurors didn't have to submit to a mandatory "voluntary" administrative search. He couldn't get the chief of police to let jurors get in without a search, hence the use of his private entrance.

It's a hodge-podge, from what I've seen. Also depends if it's city, county, state, or federal. Federal is the most intrusive. And once on premises, I'd presume they can do whatever that jurisdiction wants to, none of the "TSA only at CP and gate".

It's a nasty catch-22. The courts deal with some really nasty people, so they have to have security. Yet intrusive security changes people's behavior to be more extreme. Both parties bring something to the table, and both make it worse.

As a lawyer, I go through courthouse security quite often. Given the number of incidents of violence in courtrooms, I don't mind it at all. Of course, courthouse security is conducted by LEOs, as opposed to TSOs. Accordingly, I find them professional, courteous, efficient and not overly intrusive. More to the point, they use common sense -- no bare-arm pat downs at courthouses.

As for the legality of courthouse searches, I have no idea -- I've never researched it. I don't imagine, however, wanting to not submit to a search to enter a courtroom is going to be regarded as credible grounds for failing to report for jury duty.

Happened upon this thread, and reminded me of an interesting situation recently.

My girlfriend took my car to the courthouse a few weeks ago to pay a driving ticket. My car keys (both sets) had a handcuff key on the keyring. This was merely left on from my stint working as an armed private security guard 10 years ago.

Now, I wasn't present, so the rest of this just goes by what she says, but after placing the keys in the basket next to the WTMD, the county cop noticed the key, ordered her to remove it from the keyring for confiscation, and was threatened with arrest if she didn't comply. She surrendered it, but asked for it back upon exiting and was denied.

AFAIK, there is no law in IL regarding handcuff keys, and even still to this day I keep my license up to date for private security (not that I ever want to use it again), in which profession handcuffs are standard issue. While I understand the cause for concern, there was no option of "take it to your car" or similar, just simple confiscation. I also was denied retrieval of the key later that same day.

As for the legality of courthouse searches, I have no idea -- I've never researched it. I don't imagine, however, wanting to not submit to a search to enter a courtroom is going to be regarded as credible grounds for failing to report for jury duty.
You'd be reporting, you just wouldn't be allowed in the jury room. I, too, don't understand how a jury summons could compell somebody to be allowed to be searched. There's also a Sixth Amendment issue in criminal cases. A defendant is entitled to a jury of his peers. Here, the jury are all people who've voluntarily consented to a search. I doubt those would be "peers" of many defendants.

This is the law I found for California:

"every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:
...
Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision."
(California Penal Code section 602 y)

So from what this sounds like, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to go through a search of your person and property when entering or re-entering a courthouse.

In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter.

Thanks to everyone for the replies. All very interesting!

In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter.

Out of curiosity--and let's say it was hypothetically under California law--how would that go, in practice? Let's say that rather than answering "no" and showing the pocket pressed flat, I just said, in a calm voice, "I decline to answer."

How would a typical security guard be trained to respond? Where would it go from there? I'm guessing it wouldn't be as simple as, "Okay, just thought I'd ask, but you don't have to answer. Have a nice day."

For what it's worth, the funny thing is that I'd left my metal-frame glasses in my shirt pocket the whole time, because I completely forgot they were there, and neither I nor the guard noticed them. Plus my wife realized afterwards that she had an 8" metal nailfile in the bottom of her purse that would have looked just like a dagger on X-ray and might have been considered dangerous on search, which they didn't notice, but they caught her bottle of Coke! (She thought no food and drink just meant no eating or drinking, not a ban on sealed food inside a purse, so she wasn't deliberately trying to sneak it in.)

Thanks to everyone for the replies. All very interesting!



Out of curiosity--and let's say it was hypothetically under California law--how would that go, in practice? Let's say that rather than answering "no" and showing the pocket pressed flat, I just said, in a calm voice, "I decline to answer."

How would a typical security guard be trained to respond?These are not "security guards." They are law enforcement officers, i.e. sheriffs or police.

Where would it go from there?They would probably construe your refusal as reasonable suspicion, enough to justify a Terry frisk. If you continued to refuse, you'd be arrested.

For what it's worth, the funny thing is that I'd left my metal-frame glasses in my shirt pocket the whole time, because I completely forgot they were there, and neither I nor the guard noticed them. Plus my wife realized afterwards that she had an 8" metal nailfile in the bottom of her purse that would have looked just like a dagger on X-ray and might have been considered dangerous on search, which they didn't notice, but they caught her bottle of Coke! (She thought no food and drink just meant no eating or drinking, not a ban on sealed food inside a purse, so she wasn't deliberately trying to sneak it in.)This isn't the airport, it's a courthouse. These are professional law enforcement officers who (1) have discretion, and (2) know their job, which is to prevent weapons from entering. There is no war on liquids and I'm sure they can distinguish between a nail file and a dagger.

Do not make the mistake of confusing this search, conducted by real law enforcement officers, with the dog-and-pony show put on by TSA.

Actually, you can keep the shoes on. You don't have take off the shoes. You can go through the courthouse security. The cell phone is not allowed in the courtroom during the court is session.

Actually, you can keep the shoes on. You don't have take off the shoes. You can go through the courthouse security. The cell phone is not allowed in the courtroom during the court is session.It depends on the courthouse and courtroom. In California courts, state and federal, you do not have to take off your shoes unless they set off the alarm. You are allowed to bring your cellphone into every courtroom I've ever been in. However, it has to be turned off. I've seen judges issue steep sanctions for phones going off, and I know of one courtroom where the judge keeps a bucket of water by the bench; if a phone goes off, the bailiff collects it and "stores" it in the bucket of water. Some federal courts don't allow any electronics into the building without a court order (I've had to get one to bring a laptop in so I could do a trial).

This isn't the airport, it's a courthouse. These are professional law enforcement officers who (1) have discretion, and (2) know their job, which is to prevent weapons from entering. There is no war on liquids and I'm sure they can distinguish between a nail file and a dagger.

Do not make the mistake of confusing this search, conducted by real law enforcement officers, with the dog-and-pony show put on by TSA.

Yes, but that is what makes these types of searches all the more onerous. You are compelled to participate in jury duty. Therefor you are compelled to submit to an illegal search. Of course, this is why the government should NEVER be the guardian of our rights. Because the very same courts who would have to rule on what is a clear violation of our rights are the ones who benefit from it.

They would probably construe your refusal as reasonable suspicion, enough to justify a Terry frisk. If you continued to refuse, you'd be arrested.

If I were in any other location, where I had a legal right to be, just standing doing and saying nothing, I don't believe a cop could demand whether I had something in my pocket and force me to undergo a frisk if I refused. Or am I wrong on that?

If I'm correct on that, then apparently my rights are different in a courthouse, even after going through security. That's why I'm curious to know what the limits are, so I know if they've been overstepped. I don't believe that anyone, regardless of job title, should be so trusted that one must unquestioningly assume that everything they do is legal and proper.

But I can see why people turn into sheeple, because they know they have to appease cops and not trip their trigger for "reasonable suspicion," because cops can make one's life very difficult.

You are allowed to bring your cellphone into every courtroom I've ever been in.

It apparently does vary. In another Virginia courthouse, we first started into the main building to look at records, where the guard told both my wife and the person ahead of her in line that they couldn't take in a cell phone, even if it was turned off.

As it happened, we were in the wrong building, and needed to go to a separate one to look at records, where cell phones were allowed and there was no search. That was unusual; most records are in the courthouse itself. Which leads to another point:

Yes, but that is what makes these types of searches all the more onerous. You are compelled to participate in jury duty.

I hadn't even thought of the jury duty angle before this thread. Another admittedly less important difference is that in theory, at least, one can decide not to fly (I know, there's the right to travel, etc.--just bear with me here...), but there is no other alternative to seeing some public records.

So you either go in the building or you don't see them. But the search you have to go through isn't even for the records. It's generally set up for courtrooms, and not because people are bringing bombs or guns to kill the poor clerks in the basement who file the birth certificates.

It depends on the courthouse and courtroom. In California courts, state and federal, you do not have to take off your shoes unless they set off the alarm. You are allowed to bring your cellphone into every courtroom I've ever been in. However, it has to be turned off. I've seen judges issue steep sanctions for phones going off, and I know of one courtroom where the judge keeps a bucket of water by the bench; if a phone goes off, the bailiff collects it and "stores" it in the bucket of water. Some federal courts don't allow any electronics into the building without a court order (I've had to get one to bring a laptop in so I could do a trial).

Yes, I noticed this. I saw them. Someone who have leave the cell phone at security and they will give it back when they done at the court. I realized some of those people who have a cell phone at the courthouse. They have kept turn it off the cell phone while the court is session. They have followed the policy.

They would probably construe your refusal as reasonable suspicion, enough to justify a Terry frisk. If you continued to refuse, you'd be arrested.

I make no pretense of any justification to question your knowledge on the matter, but I seem to remember that refusing a search could not be considered reasonable suspicion for a search.

As a lawyer, I go through courthouse security quite often. Given the number of incidents of violence in courtrooms, I don't mind it at all. Of course, courthouse security is conducted by LEOs, as opposed to TSOs. Accordingly, I find them professional, courteous, efficient and not overly intrusive. More to the point, they use common sense -- no bare-arm pat downs at courthouses.

As for the legality of courthouse searches, I have no idea -- I've never researched it. I don't imagine, however, wanting to not submit to a search to enter a courtroom is going to be regarded as credible grounds for failing to report for jury duty.

Of the incidents of violence in courtrooms, how many are initiated by jurors? Parties to a case are often there because they have "issues"... But jurors are persons off the street, selected at random, with no more tendency to commit crimes than any other citizen.

As far as failing to report because of being denied entry for failing to submit to a search, what would such a juror be charged with? Would not a police officer physically denying entry be a valid excuse? Or is failure to consent to a search a crime itself? If the latter is the case, what is the point of "consent" at all?

To take it further, if a court can randomly select a person and compel him to submit to a search, can t force him to have his body scanned or his genitals rubbed? Can it compel him to undergo a drug test? Or a polygraph? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think that such questions should be asked.

Having visited more than 50 courts (federal and state) across the county, let me add a few details on procedure.

1. Shoes - most courts I have visited don't require shoe removal. The only one I remember which currently (meaning within the past 6 months - I don't visit daily) requires shoe removal is Federal Court in Los Angeles. I don't think it is required for Santa Ana (also part of the Central District), but my memory is vague on that.

2. Cell Phone - the rules change pretty often. For a period of time, years ago, Federal Court in LA didn't allow any cell phones (put in a locker by the door with a claim check). For a period of time the Federal Court in Boston didn't allow any electronics (including cameras and cell phones) without a court order. The funniest I have seen? I was in NY Bankruptcy Court (Bowling Green) for a big bankruptcy case. The lead counsel on the case, a NY lawyer, wasn't allowed to bring his cell phone because the business card, from his law firm, didn't say "attorney." As visiting counsel from CA I got to bring mine because I carry my Bar Card. I also saw an attorney, who was arguing a motion before a judge in Bankruptcy court (LA), not only have his phone ring while he was arguing a motion, but he actually answered the phone and talked for a few seconds. (The Judge took his phone and made him wait 2 hours to get it back.)

This isn't the airport, it's a courthouse. These are professional law enforcement officers who (1) have discretion, and (2) know their job, which is to prevent weapons from entering. There is no war on liquids and I'm sure they can distinguish between a nail file and a dagger.

My office is located in a courthouse. I also frequent other courthouses in Los Angeles County. By and large, the Los Angeles Superior Court screeners are not sworn sheriff deputies or police officers. They are mostly security officers (http://www.lasdhq.org/recruitment/security-officer.html) (job description) (http://www.lasdhq.org/recruitment/so1.pdf) employed by either the LASD or several of the security firms with which the LASD contracts. Take a careful looks at their badges, they say Los Angeles County Sheriff Security (http://patchcollector320.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/la_security.jpg.w180h135.jpg) as opposed to Deputy Sheriff Los Angeles County (http://www.badgehistory.com/images/Los_Angeles_Dep_1_.jpg). Generally, there is at least one deputy overlooking the security checkpoint.

I have unlimited access to my office outside business hours when I can bring in anything. However, During the hours that the building is open to the public, I must undergo screening, just like any member of the public.

While there is no war on liquids, at the location where I work, we must open any covered beverage containers, such as travel mugs and covered paper cups, to show that we are not hiding weapons in the container (after a few spills, they no longer have us put beverages through the x-ray machine). Sure, they can see suspicious objects through opaque liquids. :rolleyes:

Other idiotic rules forbid any object that could possibly be used as a weapon. A few weeks ago, I was entering the building with a female attorney friend, who is personally known to the deputy in charge of the building's security (her husband is a department head in the building). She had an approximately 4" long plastic pin holding her hair in a bun. She was made to remove the hairpin because it could be potentially used as a weapon. Normally, they would make individuals take such "contraband" objects back to their cars or made them dispose of the items. In this particular case, because of her husband's stature in the building, the deputy offered to keep it for her and return it when she left. Key chains are also high on the forbidden list.

Until a recent change, no one, not even employees, was allowed to bring in glass objects, such Snapple bottles or Pyrex food containers (many of the offices in the building have lunch rooms). Well, after many of the female judges and other female employees in the building had their Valentine's Day floral arrangements turned away, the supervising judge forced the sheriff to change that particular rule.

Needless to say, I generally arrive at my office early, before my access card stops working for the day.

Thanks to everyone for the replies. All very interesting!



Out of curiosity--and let's say it was hypothetically under California law--how would that go, in practice? Let's say that rather than answering "no" and showing the pocket pressed flat, I just said, in a calm voice, "I decline to answer."

How would a typical security guard be trained to respond? Where would it go from there? I'm guessing it wouldn't be as simple as, "Okay, just thought I'd ask, but you don't have to answer. Have a nice day."


Since this is probably not a very common incident, I highly doubt that security guards would have received any specific training on this. My guess is that you could probably get into the building without answering this question, if you were willing to escalate the matter to a supervisor a level or two higher and stand your ground and wait while they tried to consult their legal counsel and figure out how to handle the situation.

In other words, it would be exactly like refusing to answer questions at customs. They will give you a hard time, call in a few supervisors, try to wear you down by making you wait, but eventually let you through.

These are not "security guards." They are law enforcement officers, i.e. sheriffs or police.

Just an FYI...

ALL Federal Courthouses are contract security guards and the program is ran by the US Marshals Service.

Most (if not all) all are prior/retired LEOs....

Each District has its own policies and procedures set up by the US Marshal for that District.

Since this is probably not a very common incident, I highly doubt that security guards would have received any specific training on this. My guess is that you could probably get into the building without answering this question, if you were willing to escalate the matter to a supervisor a level or two higher and stand your ground and wait while they tried to consult their legal counsel and figure out how to handle the situation.

In other words, it would be exactly like refusing to answer questions at customs. They will give you a hard time, call in a few supervisors, try to wear you down by making you wait, but eventually let you through.

Wrong.

This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations.

Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed.

Concerning the coke bottle and the nail file hypothetical, as I wrote in my earlier post, glass bottles and objects such as metal nail files are not permitted to be brought into most Los Angeles County courthouses.

I highly doubt that security guards would have received any specific training on this.

As stated, Security Guards at Federal Courthouses tend to be prior/retired LEOs and are trained by the US Marshal Service. They tend to be a very professional group of folks when it comes to doing static security at Federal Courthouses.

They will give you a hard time, call in a few supervisors, try to wear you down by making you wait, but eventually let you through.

You will end up getting a USMS Deputy or Supervising Deputy on scene.....and they aren't going to be very happy campers and you won't get it......

You are allowed to bring your cellphone into every courtroom I've ever been in.

It apparently does vary. In another Virginia courthouse, we first started into the main building to look at records, where the guard told both my wife and the person ahead of her in line that they couldn't take in a cell phone, even if it was turned off.

In my local county courthouse (county of Champaign, Illinois), *all* electronics are banned, not just cell phones. The specific rule is this: "All electronic devices including, but not limited to cellular telephones, walkie-talkies, portable radios, iPods, MP3 players, portable computers (including tablet computers and laptops) and other telecommunication devices capable of internet connectivity and/or audio or video recordation are prohibited."

Back to the OP's original question, I'm curious... what are your rights if instead of having already cleared the courthouse security, you are asked *before* you clear security? For example, if you have just stepped in the building's doorway. What about if you're merely on the street outside the courthouse? I can take guesses at the answers, but I'm not a lawyer.

You are allowed to bring your cellphone into every courtroom I've ever been in. However, it has to be turned off.

It apparently does vary. In another Virginia courthouse, we first started into the main building to look at records, where the guard told both my wife and the person ahead of her in line that they couldn't take in a cell phone, even if it was turned off.

In my local county courthouse (county of Champaign, Illinois), *all* electronics are banned, not just cell phones. The specific rule is this: "All electronic devices including, but not limited to cellular telephones, walkie-talkies, portable radios, iPods, MP3 players, portable computers (including tablet computers and laptops) and other telecommunication devices capable of internet connectivity and/or audio or video recordation are prohibited."

...but I'm not a lawyer.

It's not unusual to have different rules apply for lawyers than for members of the general public.

Nowadays, most lawyers use computers in the courtroom. They are used to keep case files, track physical evidence and exhibits, take notes and perform legal research. Most courtrooms of the Los Angeles Superior Court have free access to fast (12 Mbps +) WiFi.

The same goes for cell phone use; those are essential for witness coordination and resolving scheduling conflicts when attorneys have cases pending in more than one courthouse.

...but I'm not a lawyer.

It's not unusual to have different rules apply for lawyers than for members of the general public.

I didn't mean "I'm not a lawyer" in the sense that "different rules apply for lawyers versus non-lawyers, and I'm in the second category". I meant that I don't know enough about law to say anything definitive about the different scenarios that I asked about in my post.

Indeed there are exceptions, locally, to these electronics rules for lawyers, although to my knowledge lawyers too are prohibited from using cell phones in the courtroom, even if they can bring them in, unlike members of the general public.

None of this addresses the different scenarios that I mentioned. :)

Wrong.

This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations.

Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed.


That's not the occurrence we were talking about. Go back and read the original post, and compare it to the occurrence you described in your post.

Thanks to everyone for the replies. All very interesting!



Out of curiosity--and let's say it was hypothetically under California law--how would that go, in practice? Let's say that rather than answering "no" and showing the pocket pressed flat, I just said, in a calm voice, "I decline to answer."

How would a typical security guard be trained to respond? Where would it go from there? I'm guessing it wouldn't be as simple as, "Okay, just thought I'd ask, but you don't have to answer. Have a nice day."

For what it's worth, the funny thing is that I'd left my metal-frame glasses in my shirt pocket the whole time, because I completely forgot they were there, and neither I nor the guard noticed them. Plus my wife realized afterwards that she had an 8" metal nailfile in the bottom of her purse that would have looked just like a dagger on X-ray and might have been considered dangerous on search, which they didn't notice, but they caught her bottle of Coke! (She thought no food and drink just meant no eating or drinking, not a ban on sealed food inside a purse, so she wasn't deliberately trying to sneak it in.)Since this is probably not a very common incident, I highly doubt that security guards would have received any specific training on this. My guess is that you could probably get into the building without answering this question, if you were willing to escalate the matter to a supervisor a level or two higher and stand your ground and wait while they tried to consult their legal counsel and figure out how to handle the situation.

In other words, it would be exactly like refusing to answer questions at customs. They will give you a hard time, call in a few supervisors, try to wear you down by making you wait, but eventually let you through.Wrong.

This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations.

Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed.

Concerning the coke bottle and the nail file hypothetical, as I wrote in my earlier post, glass bottles and objects such as metal nail files are not permitted to be brought into most Los Angeles County courthouses.That's not the occurrence we were talking about. Go back and read the original post, and compare it to the occurrence you described in your post.

I beg to differ.

Please review the progression of the discussion.

Wrong.

This is a common occurrence. I have seen it happen many times. The screeners and the deputies overseeing them are well trained to handle such situations.

Sometimes when people forget items in their pockets, they are asked to completely empty their pockets, place all items through the x-ray machine and walk through the metal detector again. At other times, they will be wanded with a hand held metal detector and asked to show the object. The individual will not be allowed to enter the building without the object either being shown or x-rayed.

But that wasn't what happened. I had gone through screening and been fully cleared without incident, and was standing in the courthouse within view of the guards, and then one of them thought he noticed something in my pocket. There was actually nothing in it--it was just an oversize pocket in my cargo pants that bagged out--so I truthfully said "no," but the screening process was already over.

Is it really common for guards to approve people without incident or alarm, and then ask them what's in their pocket after already approving them into the sterile area? I'd expect not, since most people keep walking to the office where they're going, rather than waiting in view. I could have done the same if I wasn't waiting for my wife. If it's common to ask additional questions after approving people, it's a pretty poor way of doing security.

This is the law I found for California:

"every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:
...
Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision."
(California Penal Code section 602 y)

So from what this sounds like, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to go through a search of your person and property when entering or re-entering a courthouse.

In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter.

That is kind of freeaky since I live in Ca. And I have never seen a female security guard in the court houses.

So I really hope that it does not mean that a male is allowed to pat-down a female?

But that wasn't what happened. I had gone through screening and been fully cleared without incident, and was standing in the courthouse within view of the guards, and then one of them thought he noticed something in my pocket. There was actually nothing in it--it was just an oversize pocket in my cargo pants that bagged out--so I truthfully said "no," but the screening process was already over.

When it comes to courthouse security, the screening process is never over. They have the absolute right to check again and again if something unusual or suspicious is noticed.

In response to Tanja's response which follows, each and every Los Angeles Superior Courthouse with which I am familiar, about 75 - 80% of them, has numerous female deputies and screeners. In all my years of practice I have never seen a pat down of either members of the public or inmates performed by a person of the opposite sex.

This is the law I found for California:

"every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:
...
Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one's person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision."
(California Penal Code section 602 y)

So from what this sounds like, it is a misdemeanor to refuse to go through a search of your person and property when entering or re-entering a courthouse.

In OP's case (pretending that it took place in California) since he had already entered the courthouse, I think he would have been justified in refusing to answer. Remember that OP was voluntarily there for personal reasons, not jury duty, and therefore was not being compelled to enter.

That is kind of freeaky since I live in Ca. And I have never seen a female security guard in the court houses.

So I really hope that it does not mean that a male is allowed to pat-down a female?

I read this to mean that it's a crime if you bypass security (sneak in through a back door) rather than if you go up to the checkpoint and refuse, but go no farther.

I read this to mean that it's a crime if you bypass security (sneak in through a back door) rather than if you go up to the checkpoint and refuse, but go no farther.

I read it like if you go through security and alarm . That means you have to get searched.

And what if you are a witness and so on and have to be in court.

Does that mean that females have to let males touch them?