ILNews

Judges consider cellphone restrictions after court video hits Facebook

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Disturbed by recent incidents in which video of open court has found its way online, Marion County judges on Friday discussed restricting cellphones in court.

“I’m alarmed,” court administrator Andrea Newsom said of two recent instances she conveyed to judges and court staff during a meeting of the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee. Newsom said court video in one instance was uploaded to Facebook. In another instance, someone in the gallery recorded and streamed video live. Upon learning of the latter violation, a judge mandated the video be removed from a cloud computing server.

“It’s serious enough now with two known incidents to bring it to the attention of the court and talk about next steps,” Newsom said.

Newsom said the activity is a clear violation of Judicial Code of Conduct Rule 2.17 that prohibits the broadcasting of court proceedings. Executive Committee Chairman Judge David Certo said there’s a larger issue: ensuring the safety and security of court participants. One judge said it’s believed that a criminal informant may have been photographed in one instance.

“My proposed solution is to not allow cellphones in the courtroom,” said Marion Superior Criminal Division Judge Marc Rothenberg. He said he would exempt a select few including law enforcement. The committee requested Newsom develop proposed solutions to be presented to all Marion Superior judges during a General Term meeting.

Judges expressed frustration that signs in court notifying observers of the prohibition on recording with handheld devices haven’t deterred some, nor have judges’ admonitions in court. Criminal Division Judge James Osborn said that even if judges discover video or photos have been taken, there’s little that can be done if the images appear online. “Once it’s out, it’s out,” he said.

Newsom said Indiana Supreme Court administration advises judges who become aware of a violation to create a record entry noting that the recording has occurred. Material recorded in violation of Rule 2.17 that appears online can be removed by court order, she said.

Also Friday, the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee:

  • Approved a grant-funded pilot program allowing juvenile probation to collect drug screens through an oral cheek swab rather than the customary urine sample. Chief probation officer Christine Kerl said the division hopes to make the alternate test available within 60 days for those subject to mandated drug screens. Probation staff said the swab is more convenient and can be administered anywhere at any time by probation officers. The new tests should increase participation, since about 40 percent of juveniles fail to show up for required screens currently taken at lab facilities, according to the probation division.  
  • Granted a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access public records of criminal offenders from Marion County’s JUSTIS case management system.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT