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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT