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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT