ILNews

Electronics banned in Allen County: Courthouse employees and attorneys who obtain court-approved photo ID cards will be exempt.

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
   In fall 2003, various gyms around the country and around the world made headlines when they started implementing bans on camera phones so that patrons wouldn ;t take photos of other patrons in embarrassing situations like changing in the locker room, finishing that last crunch, or breaking a sweat on the treadmill.

   While courthouses can cause some people to break into a sweat, the similarities end there. However, more and more courthouses are starting to ban cell phones and electronic devices for similar reasons.

   The Allen County courts in Fort Wayne are the latest to follow suit with federal courts and other courts around the country. Cell phones and all other electronic devices except laptops will be prohibited in most cases in the county ;s courthouses beginning Jan. 2, 2007, making Allen County one of the first counties in the state to enact such a ban not just in the courtrooms.

   The ban includes the main courthouse, the courthouse annex (small claims), the Bud Meeks Justice Center, and the Allen County Juvenile Center.

   Even out-of-town attorneys may be able to bring in phones if they practice often in the Allen County court buildings and apply for court-approved photo IDs. However, a statement from courthouse officials notes that the provision for attorneys applies only to attorneys and that other staff – such as runners and paralegals – will not be permitted to bring such devices into court buildings.

   There will also be no provision to keep or store cell phones or other electronic devices anywhere inside the court buildings.

   To obtain a court-approved photo ID for attorneys, there will be sessions Dec. 14 and 15 at the Allen County Law Library on the first floor of the Allen County Courthouse from 8:30 a.m. to noon and from 1 to 4 p.m. both days. To obtain an ID at these sessions, attorneys must: 

• Bring Certificate of Good Standing card, issued by the Supreme Court, and a valid driver ;s license.

   

• Complete an Attorney Photo ID Badge Form. Court staff will be available to assist and authorize completion of the form

   

• Have their photo taken by a courtapproved vendor. 

   Photo IDs will be processed and available for pick up in the Administrative Offices beginning Dec. 27. The cost of the photo ID card is $10.10. 

   Attorneys may also obtain photo ID cards after Dec. 15 by bringing the same documents to the Administrative Offices of the Allen Superior Court, Room 208 of the Allen County Courthouse.

   After completing the Attorney Photo ID Badge Form, the attorney must take the form to the court-approved vendor: Indiana Stamp Co., 1319 Production Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46808. The vendor ;s phone number is (260) 424-5395. The cost of photo ID cards for attorneys who miss the Dec. 14 and 15 sessions is $22.50.

   "There are a couple primary reasons for this ban," said Allen Superior Court Administrator Jerry Noble. "One is the nuisance factor – regardless of signage and announcements, the nuisance of cell phones going off in courtrooms remains. Officers in Superior and Circuit courts have issues and reports with this."

   It should go without saying that it is simply polite and often required by courtroom warnings and signage to silence a cell phone in a courtroom setting.

   "Beyond that, a security problem that has become an issue in recent weeks and months, is the use of cell phone cameras during trials and proceedings to record proceedings, take photos of witnesses, confidential informants, and deputy prosecutors," Noble said.

   Another court that implemented a ban on electronics – and then lifted it a year later, handing the responsibility to the sheriff ;s department – was Elkhart County also because of the camera capabilities of electronic devices, according to Judge Terry C. Shewmaker in Goshen.

   Noble added that photos have been taken in the Allen County court buildings on "multiple occasions," at least enough for the court to consider the security aspect of allowing – or not allowing – devices with camera-taking capabilities.

   While Noble couldn ;t recall a specific time where someone ;s photo taken in a court building lead to intimidation, he did say, "Some would see the act of taking the photo as a threat. Phones have been confiscated with these photos on them. The surreptitious nature of using cell phone cameras in this way is a real concern to us."

   To consider how to draft the rules prohibiting cell phones and electronic devices in the courthouses, Noble said he spoke with those who handle security matters at the federal court "to get a sense of how they do it."

   "Federal courts, sometimes in the same judicial district, have taken differing policy approaches to wireless communication devices," according to an article in the April 2005 edition of "The Third Branch," the newsletter for the federal courts.

   "Some ban them from the courthouse, while others allow them in with certain restrictions on usage. Some ban the general public from bringing in devices but make exceptions for attorneys, jurors, and others. Some courts require cell phones to be turned off, while others ask they be placed in the vibrate mode, and still others require them to be stored with the court security officers," stated the article, titled "Wireless Devices in Federal Courts."

   Because of the differences, judges and court security personnel looked for official guidance from the Judicial Conference.

   "We all came to the same conclusion," Chief Judge John W. Lungstrum, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, was quoted in the article."Because of the varying views among judges and court security officers, and the differences in buildings, security procedures and technological sophistication among courts, no one-size-fits-all decision is possible at this time. Instead, we will give the courts the information that will help them develop their own informed policies."

   However, Karen Redmond, of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Office of Public Affairs, said the Judicial Conference "has urged all courts to make a policy about restrictions of wireless devices. Cell phones with the ability to take photos are already not allowed in the District courts and each court is adapting its own policy on how to handle that."

   Noble said, "In the federal court, they ;ll hold phones for people, but their volume is so slight compared to ours. It ;s not something we can do."

   Noble added that even the federal court won ;t hold cell phones every day.

   "On days when they anticipate large numbers of people, such as when they hold naturalization ceremonies, they turn people away who have their cell phones with them," he said.

   It remains to be seen whether other courts around the state will implement rules similar to those of Allen County, but other nonfederal courts in the United States in areas such as Baltimore, Detroit, and Illinois ; 9th Circuit (Knox, Warren, Henderson, Fulton, McDonough, and Hancock counties) have implemented similar bans on electronic devices with capabilities to secretly record or take photos in courthouses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT