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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT