Pup

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?

T.J. Bender

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.

IslandBased

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.

RedSnapper

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?

lobster7

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.

PHLflying

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!..

FliesWay2Much

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.

sbagdon

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.

PTravel

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.

FearFree

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.

RichardKenner

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.

cbn42

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.

Pup

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.)

PTravel

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

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

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.

N830MH

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.