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, 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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 (job description) 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 as opposed to Deputy Sheriff Los Angeles County. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.