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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT