Q&A: Chief Justice Ron George on Judicial Security Interviewed by Bill Blum
How serious are the threats of violence facing judges today?
We know from reports of local sheriffs and courts that the number of threats, incidents, and security breaches in our courthouses grows each year. The Judicial Council of California, the policymaking body for our state courts that I chair, conducted a public hearing in April on critical needs related to access to justice, including the issue of court security. Among those testifying was a representative of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who reported that dangerous weapons confiscated by officers at screening stations in the past year included four handguns, 78,000 knives, 20,000 razors, and 8,000 mace containers. There were 1,641 security incidents, including 135 physical altercations, in Los Angeles courthouses requiring some type of response from the sheriff's department, and 78 verifiable threats against judges and other court employees.
Are the problems more severe in some geographical areas than in others?
The problem of providing adequate and necessary court security is not unique to particular geographical areas, but it often arises out of chronic underfunding, insufficient judgeships, and outdated buildings in a specific location. Among those most affected are courts in Southern California, particularly the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside counties); the Central Valley, specifically Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties; and, in the north, Shasta and Butte counties-all with potentially serious and unresolved security problems.
Out-of-date building designs contribute to inadequate safety and security at 68 percent of California's courthouses. Many older courthouses have had few or no security upgrades for many years. In numerous locations, courthouses lack the basic physical space to install entrance screening stations to keep weapons and other dangerous items from entering the facility. Adequate spaces for jurors and attorneys, public waiting areas, and child care facilities can ease the gridlock that often prevails in our hallways and common spaces.
Are the problems more severe in some kinds of courts?
The problems typically are more severe in criminal, family law, and juvenile courts, although there often are serious concerns in courts hearing small claims and unlawful-detainer matters. These courts deal most directly with issues that are difficult and often emotional for litigants. Moreover, in some counties, in excess of two-thirds of family law litigants are unrepresented or self-represented. The large number of parties without counsel may affect the litigants' understanding of and attitudes toward court procedures and proceedings.
The growing number of serious felony offenses and gang cases presents a real security problem. Often, the separation of disputing parties is crucial for everyone's safety. Courts with heavy gang-related caseloads may face substantial challenges in keeping their facilities and personnel safe. In 41 percent of the facilities, in-custody defendants are brought to courtrooms through public hallways in the immediate presence of victims, witnesses, and jurors.
Are the problems more serious today than in the recent past?
Yes. Thirty percent of California's courthouses were built before 1960, and 70 percent were built before 1980. The increase in caseloads has been enormous. Holding areas designed 50 years ago for 30 to 40 in-custody defendants now routinely are required to handle 100 to 120 such individuals on a daily basis. A greater percentage of litigants are not represented. The courts serve a more diverse population, which brings a host of different expectations.
As chief justice and chair of the Judicial Council, what can you do to help provide adequate courthouse security?
The Judicial Council and I have been attacking this problem in a number of ways. First, we have been working closely with our sister branches of government to obtain adequate funding to help ensure the safety and security of all those who work and conduct business in our courts.
In addition, in 2003 I appointed a Court Security Working Group, chaired by court of appeal Justice Richard D. Aldrich, to develop uniform standards and guidelines to implement trial court security services. These standards, adopted last April by the Judicial Council, are among the first of their kind in the nation. They determine staffing levels based on formulas devised to ensure that all courts receive funding at a consistent level. In addition, we are looking at security as one of the top factors in setting priorities for the renovation or replacement of the most deficient courthouses, a goal we hope to see furthered by the passage of a bond measure in the near future.
Have the courts received sufficient funding to accomplish those goals?
In fiscal year 2004-05, California trial courts spent approximately $373 million on court security. This represents about 16 percent of the statewide trial court budget and our single largest area of expenditure. Court security costs have been increasing by approximately 7 percent annually for the past five years due to the increased cost of law enforcement salaries and benefits negotiated at the local level by county supervisors. These costs are passed on to the trial courts. Despite the increases, operational improvements to meet the increasing security needs of the trial courts have not been funded.
Based on standards recently adopted by the Judicial Council, we estimate a need for an additional 10 percent to 20 percent in security funding to bring underfunded courts to a more appropriate funding level. We also estimate the need for an additional 120 to 140 entrance screening stations; currently, courts in 22 counties have no entrance screening capabilities in any of their courthouses.
In Los Angeles County and elsewhere, judges are among the few residents who can obtain concealed weapons permits. Is it wise for a judge to carry a concealed weapon, and would it ever be appropriate for a judge to bring a gun to court?
Our Constitution generally gives citizens the right to carry arms to protect themselves and their property, and each judge has the right to do what he or she feels is necessary for personal protection outside the courtroom. Although courts locally have different policies regarding judges bringing personal firearms into the courthouse, I believe that the goal should be zero tolerance for weapons of any kind in the courthouse, other than those carried by trained security personnel.
Do you believe it would be helpful to install Plexiglas or other barriers in courtrooms?
We have a responsibility to provide safe and secure courtrooms for our judges and court personnel and for the individuals who come to our courts seeking justice. But placing a direct barrier between judges and the people they serve generally is not the solution.
Do you believe that the current intense public scrutiny of judges threatens the principle of judicial independence in the United States?
The courts are required to make decisions on contentious and complex issues that cannot be resolved by any other means. The outcomes in many of these cases are much more visible today than in the past, and judges may experience more direct criticism simply for doing their job and applying the rule of law. In California and across the nation, judicial recall efforts and contentious judicial elections are occurring with greater frequency, as are efforts in some instances to strip courts of traditional jurisdiction. When attempts to intimidate judges to achieve a particular result occur, adverse consequences may ensue that affect not only the individual judge but the system as a whole. For example, such actions may cause undue personal and professional distress and fear for the safety of the judge and his or her family members. This potentially may damage the judge's career on the bench. The public may be adversely affected if respected, honorable, and conscientious individuals decide not to seek a judicial career, or to leave the bench as a result.
Judges are keenly aware that the Code of Judicial Conduct limits how they may respond to accusations or misstatements regarding their handling of cases. In a time of heightened media and public attention, and the increase of outlets for commentary on the courts, the bench, and the bar, interested members of the public must combat politicization of the judicial process to protect the independence of the judiciary.
Bill Blum is an administrative law judge and freelance writer based in Los Angeles.