OT? Courthouse security
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 109
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 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?
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 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?
#2
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
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.
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.
#3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
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.
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.
#4
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 207
...
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.
...
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.
...
#5
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SLC or DUB
Programs: The program formerly know as WorldPerks
Posts: 330
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.
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.
#6
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 736
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!..
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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?
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.
#8
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
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.
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.
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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.
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.
#10
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: AA, UA, Marriott Gold
Posts: 349
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.
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.
#11
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#12
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
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.
"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.
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 109
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.)
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.
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.)
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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?
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?
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.)
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.
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,318
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.