ILNews

No-phone zones might be called for in Indy courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judges in Marion County were rightly troubled recently by multiple instances of cellphone video taken in court winding up online, which included secretly recorded video of a criminal informant’s testimony.

Now, an outright ban on cellphones in Marion County courts is among the restrictions judges are considering.
 

phones-15col.jpg Signs on courtrooms enforce cellphone silence, but judges are considering a total ban. (IL Photo/ Aaron P. Bernstein)

“We’re looking at what colleagues in other counties are doing to protect the process,” Marion Superior Court administrator Andrea Newsom said.

“I do think it is a challenge for the court and court staff to sort of keep an eye on what’s going on,” with cellphones in courts, she said. “More than anything, the judges are concerned that the safety of the litigants is protected,” as well as the safety of attorneys and court staff.

Such concerns prompted Indiana’s other largest counties to conclude years ago that the courtroom is no place for devices capable of recording testimony through photos or video. Lake, Allen and St. Joseph counties – the state’s second-, third- and forth-most populous counties – have zero-tolerance policies on cellphones, tablets or other devices in courtrooms. Even some smaller counties, such as Steuben, have banned cellphones in court.

Allen County appears to have the most restrictive policy: Devices aren’t even allowed in the courthouse unless you are an attorney or other authorized person with ID.

Jerry Noble, administrator for Allen Superior Court, said the experience of gang trials and serious felonies in the past 10 years led to the prohibition.

“When we had jurors being photographed in the hallways and other places in the courthouse, and criminal informants and prosecuting attorneys and that kind of thing, we felt it was important enough to do that,” Noble said referring to the cellphone ban.

“We’re a metropolitan court, and our criminal division judges consistently rank in the top five in sheer volume of jury trial activity,” he said. “In certain types of cases, maybe you’ve got gang members involved. It’s not that infrequent to have that kind of trial, and that was a conversation that drove us to this point.”

Security personnel encountered some bumps enacting the policy initially.

“The first year or two, members of the public would express frustration and be upset,” Noble said. There still are occasional grumbles, but “our frequent fliers, so to speak, are pretty well accustomed to it.”

Allen County on July 19 lifted its ban on cameras for one day to allow media to take photos of evidence in the forthcoming trial of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard. A change of venue moved Bisard’s trial on reckless homicide and multiple operating while intoxicated charges from Indianapolis to Fort Wayne. Bisard is accused of killing motorcyclist Eric Wells and injuring two others, Kurt Weekly and Mary Mills, who were stopped at an Indianapolis intersection when Bisard crashed his police cruiser into the cyclists in 2010. Test results from a blood draw after the accident showed Bisard had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.19.

Marion County would likely run into some difficulty following Allen County’s lead. Screeners currently run people through security at the door of the City-County Building in Indianapolis, but separating court visitors from those going to other government offices would be a challenge. The location of courtrooms on multiple floors increases the challenge.

Like Marion County, larger neighboring counties including Hamilton and Johnson post signs and admonish those in court to turn off their phones or devices, but it’s common for ringtones to punctuate proceedings. Johnson Circuit Judge Mark Loyd said he doesn’t find the occasional noise too much of a nuisance, “though I’m sure some of my brothers and sisters on the bench range in irritation all the way up to bombastic.”

But Loyd did once catch a litigant recording witness testimony while a separation of witnesses order was in effect. Loyd confiscated the litigant’s phone, but he acknowledges judges are in no position to try to spot surreptitious cellphone use while presiding.

“It’s extra difficult unless you put together a procedure ahead of time to accomplish the end goal,” he said. In his court, that includes beginning each session by telling people that cellphones should not be on in the courtroom, and any that are will be confiscated. Most people comply with that, he said.

Massiel Krall, deputy administrator for Hamilton County courts, said a local rule prohibits use of cellphones in court, and anyone caught using a cellphone risks being found in contempt.

Regulation of cellphones is left to local courts. The state makes no recommendation on best practices and doesn’t track various policies around Indiana, according to Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan.

In Indiana’s second-largest county, cellphones are detected when people walk through a magnetometer on the way inside the courthouse, said Sgt. Mike Modrak, who works court security for the Lake County Sheriff’s Department. For the public entering, no phones pass.

Modrak said the policy in Lake County has been in effect for about five years. Exceptions are made for attorneys, court staff and sometimes media in high-profile cases.

“Cellphones are not allowed in court, not even in the hallway or the waiting areas,” he said. Same goes for recording devices. The devices also are forbidden in the probation department.

Lake and St. Joseph county courts followed Allen County’s lead in crafting their own restrictive policies, but both ultimately made it clear that any benefits of allowing cellphones in court were outweighed by the risks.

“You have to draw the line,” Modrak said. “You can’t be iffy.”•

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT