©2014TheNationalJudicialCollegeJudicialCollegeBuilding–MS358Reno,Nevada89557
JUDICIAL SECURITY 2014 SURVEY REPORT
Analysisofpersonalandon‐sitesecuritymeasuresasidentifiedbyaself‐selectingcohortofNationalJudicialCollegejudicialalumni.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Acknowledgements______________________________________________________________________________________ 1
ExecutiveSummary______________________________________________________________________________________ 2
Introduction______________________________________________________________________________________________ 3
QuestionOne–TypeofJudge___________________________________________________________________________ 5
QuestionTwo–InappropriateCommunication_______________________________________________________ 6
QuestionThree–PlaceofInappropriateCommunication____________________________________________ 7
QuestionFour–ThreatstotheJudge __________________________________________________________________ 8
QuestionFive–MeansofThreat________________________________________________________________________ 9
QuestionSix–ThreatsRelatedtoSpecificCase______________________________________________________11
QuestionSeven–CaseTypeforThreat _______________________________________________________________12
QuestionEight–ReportingThreats___________________________________________________________________13
QuestionNine–PhysicalAttacks______________________________________________________________________14
QuestionTen–EffectonDecision‐Making____________________________________________________________15
QuestionEleven–EffectonPersonalConduct _______________________________________________________17
QuestionTwelve–SecurityofFamilyMembers______________________________________________________18
QuestionThirteen–SafetyWorries___________________________________________________________________19
QuestionFourteen–WorriesaboutFamilySafety___________________________________________________20
QuestionFifteen–SafetyofCourthouse/Building___________________________________________________21
QuestionSixteen–SecurityPersonnel________________________________________________________________22
QuestionSeventeen–ExitNearBench________________________________________________________________23
QuestionEighteen–EscapePlanEstablished________________________________________________________24
QuestionNineteen–PublicAccesstoChambers/Office_____________________________________________25
QuestionTwenty–WorkplaceSecurityMeasures___________________________________________________26
QuestionTwenty‐One–ContemptPower_____________________________________________________________28
QuestionTwenty‐Two–UseofContemptforSecurityViolation____________________________________29
QuestionTwenty‐Three–AbilitytoMoveHearing___________________________________________________30
QuestionTwenty‐Four–MovingaHearing___________________________________________________________31
QuestionTwenty‐Five–HearingLocations___________________________________________________________32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QuestionTwenty‐Six–PersonalSafetyMeasures____________________________________________________33
QuestionTwenty‐Seven–PersonalVehicle___________________________________________________________34
QuestionTwenty‐Eight–OffsiteHearingSecurityMeasures________________________________________35
QuestionTwenty‐Nine–FamilySafetyPlan__________________________________________________________36
QuestionThirty–ComponentsofComprehensiveProgram________________________________________37
Conclusion_______________________________________________________________________________________________38
Endnotes_________________________________________________________________________________________________39
Acknowledgements
TheNationalJudicialCollegethankstheNationalCenterforJudicialSecurity,U.S.MarshalsService,JudicialSecurityDivisionforitsongoingdedicationtoraisingawarenessandprovidingtechnicalassistancearoundjudicialsafetyandsecurity.Theireffortsindevelopingthissurveyandanalyzingtheresultswereinstrumentaltothecompletionofthisproject.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUDICIAL SECURITY
InFiscalYear2008,theU.S.MarshalsServiceestablishedaNationalCenterforJudicialSecuritywhichisoperated,staffed,andmanagedbyemployeesandcontractorstaffoftheJudicialSecurityDivision.TheCenterprovideseducational,operational,andtechnicalfunctionsthataredesignedtoservevariousneedsofanational,andinsomecases,aninternationalconstituency.Theyalsoprovidesawiderangeofsupportandservicestomunicipal,city,county,state,federal,andinternationaljurisdictionsrelatedtothesecurityoperationsoftheirrespectivecourtsystemsandtheprotectionofmembersofthejudiciaryandextendedcourtfamily.
Page2
ExecutiveSummary
Infall2014,TheNationalJudicialCollege(NJC),inpartnershipwiththeU.S.MarshalsService,JudicialSecurityDivision(USMS),askedover10,000NJCalumnitoparticipateinasurveyregardingtheirpersonalexperienceswithcommunications,threats,andsystemresponses.Thisreporttabulatesthesurveyresultsandwaswrittentoidentifyperceivedsecurityvulnerabilitiesandthesecuritymeasureswhichcanbeutilizedtomitigatethem.Itillustratesthejudges’viewsontheircurrentstateofsecuritybothinandoutofthecourthouseandprovidesinsightintothefactorsthatinfluenceajudge’sbehaviorasaresultofperceivedandrealrisks.Itishopedthattheinformationwithinthisreportwillbeusedbyjudges,courtadministrators,securityproviders,andthosewithavestedinterestinsecuritytoprovideafoundationforfurtherdialoguewiththejudiciaryonoverallsecuritymatters.Itisalsohopedthatthissurveyisusedasacatalysttofurtherresearchandidentifysystemic,personal,physicalandlegalriskstothejusticesystem.Judgessharedtheirexperiencesinthefollowingareas:
INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION AND THREATS
Judgesrespondingtothesurveyindicatedthattheyhadreceivedaninappropriatecommunicationeitherathome,atwork,orintransit,regardlessoftheirjurisdictionordocket.
REPORTING OPPORTUNITIES
Judgeswhohadreceivedaninappropriatecommunicationorthreathadaformaloutletforareport,eitherlawenforcementorsecuritypersonnel.Otherschosetoreportinformallytocolleaguesorfamily.Aminoritychosenottoreportatall.
EXISTING SECURITY MEASURES
Manyjudgesreportedpersonalandinstitutionalsecuritymeasuresincludingcourthousesecurity,homesecurity,andsafetyplans.
FAMILY SAFETY
Severaljudgesnotedthatfamilyhadbeenthreatenedasaresultoftheirpositionasjudge,andjudgesworkwiththeirfamiliestoincludefamilymembersinsafetyplanning.
Page3
Introduction
IMPETUS FOR SURVEY
Theimpetusforthissurveywastwofold:
1. Alackofthreatandsecuritybaseddata,especiallyamongcertaintypesofjudges,and
2. Anobservedinconsistencyinthestandardofsecurityproceduresthroughoutalltypesofjudicialandadministrativeinstitutions.
Ofparamountconcernisthelackofthreat‐andsecurity‐baseddatawhichwouldassistsecuritypersonnelwithobtainingandestablishingbettersecuritystandardsforjudgesintheirjurisdictions.Thislackofdatamakesitchallengingforcourtadministratorstorequestadditionalfundingforsecurityupgradesbecausethereislittleornoevidencetosupportthenecessityofsafetyenhancements.Thedatainthisreportcanbeutilizedtoassistinclosingsecuritygaps,mitigatingrisktopersonnel,andasameanstosecureadditionalfundingforsecurityimprovements.
Thesecondconcernistheinconsistencyinthestandardofsecurityproceduresthroughoutalltypesofjudicialandadministrativeinstitutions.Notalljudges,statesorinstitutionssharethesamesecurity,fundingoremergencypreparedness.Somejurisdictionsemploystrongsecuritymeasureswhileothershavelimitedaccesstotheresourcesrequiredtomaintainaminimallevelofsafetyandsecurity.
AstheNationalCenterforStateCourtsinstructs,itisessentialforjudgesandcourtadministratorstounderstandwhyincidentsoccurandwhatincitesinappropriatecommunicationsandthreats.iTheawarenessgleanedfrom“understanding”willallowjudicialsecurityprofessionalstobetterinstructthecourtsonwhatactionstotakeintheeventofemergency.
METHODOLOGY
TheNJCdisseminatedasurveytostate,local,tribal,militaryandadministrativejudgesacrossthecountryonavarietyofsecurityrelatedquestionsthatcanimpactjudicialdecision‐makingacrosstheUnitedStates.iiThesurveyconsistedof30questionsthatwereprovidedtoover10,000NJCalumni.Questionsfocusedonthreatsandinappropriatecommunicationsreceivedfromlitigantsaswellastherespondent’sviewsonthecurrentstateofsecuritybothinandawayfromthecourthouse.Interestincompletingthesurveywasgreat–1,281(about10%percent)ofthosequeriedrespondedtothesurvey.Judgeswerepermittedtoskipallquestionsexceptforthefirstquestion,whichaskedaboutjudgetype.Allnon‐judgesurveyrespondentswereautomaticallydisqualifiedfromcompletingthesurvey.
Page4
Thisreportcanbeusedbysecurityproviders,judges,courtadministratorsandthosewithavestedinterestinsecuritytoprovideafoundationtofurtherdialoguewiththejudiciaryonoverallsecuritymatters.Itisalsohopedthatthisreportisusedasacatalysttofurtherresearchandidentifysystemic,personal,physicalandlegalriskstothejusticesystem.
Forthepurposesofthesurvey,theNJCandtheUSMSusedthefollowingdefinitions:Aninappropriatecommunicationisanycontactbeyondthenormalcourseofbusiness,whetherwritten,verbal,orbehavioral,thatconveysathreatening,harassing,orunsettlingmessage.Theyrangefromexplicitthreatsofharmtoquestionableorbizarrelanguageorreferences.Suspiciousbehavior,suchasstalking,pseudo‐legalcourtfilings,andunreasonablesolicitationsshouldbeconsideredinappropriatecommunications.Definingacommunicationasinappropriateissubjectiveandcontextual,butaneffortshouldbemadetodistinguishbetweencommunicationsofatrulyinappropriatenatureandfreespeechthatmaybedisagreeablebutnotimproper.Threatsareinappropriatecommunicationsthatexpress,explicitlyorimplicitly,theintentordesiretocauseharm,orthebeliefthatharmwillbedone.Threatsarenotnecessarilydirectorobvious.
ANALYSIS
EachofthethirtyquestionswasanalyzedinlightofexistingdataonjudicialsecuritykeptbytheNJC,theUSMS,orotherorganizationsthatprovidetechnicalassistancetocourts.Surveyresponsesaredisplayedingraphform,andsuggestionsaregiventoresolvepossiblegapsinsecurityforeachquestion.
Page5
QuestionOne–TypeofJudge
WHAT TYPE OF JUDGE ARE YOU?
Judgeswereaskedaboutthetypesofcasesoverwhichtheypresidetoconductamoreaccurateandin‐depthlookatthesecuritychallengeseachjudgetypefacesinhisorheruniqueenvironment.
Thedatainquestiononereflectsthetypesofjudgesandjudicialofficerswhorespondedtothissurvey.Respondingwere1,281judges;33tribaljudges(2.58%),sixmilitaryjudges(.47%),48appellatejudges(stateappellateorsupremecourts,3.75%),198administrativelawjudgesandhearingofficers(15.46%),and933stateandlocalcourtjudges(72.83).Therewere63individualswhoattemptedtotakethesurveybutweredisqualifiedbecausetheywerenotjudicialofficers.
QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF JUDGE
ANSWERED: 1,281 SKIPPED: 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
ALJ/HearingOfficer
State/local
Appellate
Military
Tribal
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page6
QuestionTwo–InappropriateCommunication
HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED AN INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION AS A RESULT OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE? (I.E., THE INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION CAME FROM A LITIGANT, SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH A CASE BEFORE YOU, OR A DECISION YOU MADE.)
Inappropriatecommunicationsareofteninherentintheprofessionofajudicialofficerandarenotuncommon,asevidencedbytheresponsesinQuestionTwo.Almostthree‐quartersofthejudges(71.92%)notedthattheyreceivedaninappropriatecommunicationfromacourtrelateddecision.TheUSMSstatisticsechothesefindings.Infiscalyear2013,TheOfficeofProtectiveIntelligenceassessed,mitigatedanddeterred1,115threatsandinappropriatecommunicationsinvolvingthejudiciary.iiiMoreover,a1999surveyof1,029Pennsylvaniastatecourtjudgesfoundthat51.8%percentreportedbeingthetargetofaninappropriatecommunication.Inthesamereport,itwasnotedthatmorethan25%ofthestatecourtjudgesthatweresurveyedwerealsophysicallyapproached.iv
Providingjudicialsecuritypersonnelandjudicialofficerswithacommonknowledgebasewillhelpjudicialofficersidentifywhatbehaviorsareindicatorsoffutureviolenceescalation.Thisisespeciallyimportantwhenajudicialofficerreceivesathreatorinappropriatecommunication.
QUESTION TWO – INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION
ANSWERED: 1,154 SKIPPED: 12
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page7
QuestionThree–PlaceofInappropriateCommunication
IF YES, WHERE/WHEN WAS THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Threatsandinappropriatecommunicationscanbeseenatandawayfromthecourthouseandpresentthepotentialforimpendingdangertojudges,theirfamilyandstaff.QuestionThreeaskedjudgestoidentifywhereandwhenthesecommunicationswerereceivedinordertoidentifywhereandwhenjudgesandjudicialofficersaremostvulnerable.Judgescouldprovidemultipleresponsesifmultiplecommunicationswerereceivedandmanydid;814judgesprovided1,410instancesofinappropriatecommunication.
Thefollowingcommentsfromjudgeshighlighttheseriousnessofthreatandcreativityofthethreatener:
1. “Homemadebillboardonhouseandpickup.”2. “AdefendantapproachedmewhileIwasattendingmyregularplaceofworship.I
notifiedtheJudicialThreatSectionthatwasinplace.”3. “Deadbatsplacedonmyvehiclewindshieldathomeandwork.”4. “Adeadcatsignifyingwhatwillhappentome,alsorelatedtoremovalofachildform
amentallyillperson.”5. “Onmyemail,viacell,texts,atthegrocerystore,homephone,etc.thisisavery
smallcommunityandpeopleseemtothinkthejudgeisapproachableallthetime.”
QUESTION 3 – PLACE OF INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION
ANSWERED: 814 SKIPPED: 467
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Onpersonaltime
Intransit
Duringahearing
Athome
Atsecondaryworklocation
Atprimaryworklocation
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page8
QuestionFour–ThreatstotheJudge
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THREATENED AS A RESULT OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE? (I.E., THE THREAT CAME FROM A LITIGANT, SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH A CASE BEFORE YOU, OR A DECISION YOU MADE.)
Outofthe1,143judgesrespondingtoQuestionFour,593(51.88%)saidthey’dbeenthreatenedasaresultoftheirpositionasajudge.ManyalsogaveadditionalbeneficialinformationinQuestionFiveaboutwherespecificallytheseinappropriatecommunicationsandthreatsweretakingplace.Theynotedsuchplacesasletters,throughthirdparties,andmanyothersources.Whilethereisameasureofdangerinherentinthepositionofajudge,thisdangercanbemanagedbyprovidingpersonalsecurityeducation,properlyassessingthreatsandinappropriatecommunications,andestablishingthreatmanagementtechniquestomonitoron‐goingthreatinvestigations.
QUESTION FOUR – THREATS TO THE JUDGE
ANSWERED: 1,143 SKIPPED: 138
520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page9
QuestionFive–MeansofThreat
IF YOU HAVE BEEN THREATENED, BY WHAT MEANS WAS THE THREAT CONVEYED? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Thejudges’responsesrevealedoneconceptthatiscrucialtounderstandduringthe21stcentury:inappropriatecommunicationsandthreatsareconstantlybeingconveyedthroughtechnologicaladvancementssuchastextmessages(1.83%),email(10.28%),andsocialmedia(15.23%).Asthemodesofcommunicationchangesowillthewaysthatthreatsarecommunicated.Withtheadvancementsofthe21stcenturyalsocomestheopportunityforlitigantstothreatenjudgesevenwhiletheyarewithintheconfinesoftheirownhome.Itisessentialforsecurityofficialstoexpandjudges’protectiontomeettherequirementsofthe21stcentury,butmoreimportantly,toalwayshaveanavailablesourceforjudgestoreporttoandpreventmorecourt‐targetedactsofviolence.
Thefollowingcommentsfromjudgeshighlighttheseriousnessofthreatandcreativityofthethreatener:
“Afterfindingadefendantguiltyandsentencinghim.Thenextmorningwhenwecametoworkwefoundabulletholethroughthefrontdoor;afilingcabinetstoppedthebullet.”
“CommunicationreceivedfromVApsychiatristafterveterancommittedandadmittedto2weeksofstalkingandplantoplacebombonpersonalvehicle.”
“Liquidplumberbombwithroofingnailsplacedonmyfrontpoach.Alsohadanotherincidentyearsapartwhereadryiceexplosivewasthrownoutbesidemyhome.”
“Iwasalmostmurderedbyalitigant.Hekilledhisex‐wife'shusband,triedtokillherbutshemanagedtoescape.Hethenshothimselfwhenhecouldn'tfindher.Hehadalistinhispossessionwithmyname,homeaddress,courthouseaddresswhereIwaspresidingthatday,guns,ammo,andthemakingsofMolotovcocktails.Hadhisex‐wifenotescaped,heclearlywascomingaftermenext.Infurtheranceofhismasterplanhehadrentedacaranddisguisedhimselfwithawig.Ihadlasthadanycontactwithhim12yearsearlierwhenIpresidedovertheirdivorce.”
“Intimidationbygoingafterfamilymember.”
Page10
QUESTION FIVE – MEANS OF THREAT
ANSWERED: 545 SKIPPED: 736
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Socialmedia
Textmessage
Orally‐phone
Orally‐inperson
Letterathome
Letteratwork
Stalking/suspiciousbehavior
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page11
QuestionSix–ThreatsRelatedtoSpecificCase
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED AN INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION OR THREAT, WAS IT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC CASE?
Arevealing,butnotsurprising,bitofdatawaswhetheraninappropriatecommunicationorthreatwasrelatedtoaspecificcase.Mostappearedtobe:737(80.72%)judgesindicatedthattheywererelatedtoaspecificcase.AsJudgeChuckWellersaidinhisJudicialStudiesProgramdoctoralthesisStatutoryResponsetoCourtSecurityConcerns,“Inthecaseofcourt‐targetedviolencedirectedtowardjudges,theperpetratorofviolenceandthejudgeusuallyarefamiliarwitheachother,asaresultofhavinginteractedinthecourtroom.”v
QUESTION SIX – THREATS RELATED TO SPECIFIC CASE
ANSWERED: 913 SKIPPED: 368
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page12
QuestionSeven–CaseTypeforThreat
IF YES, WAS THE CASE…
Nowthatthesurveyidentifiedwhenandwheretheinappropriatecommunicationorthreatoccurred,bywhatmeansitwasconveyed,andwhetheritwasrelatedtoaspecificcase,thesurveythenaskedjudgestoidentifythetypeofcasethatthecommunicationorthreatstemmedfrom.Noonecasetypedominatedtheresponses.Outofthe753responses,512(43.16%)ofthecaseswerecivilandadministrativeand428(56.84%)werecriminal.
QUESTION SEVEN – CASE TYPE FOR THREAT
ANSWERED: 753 SKIPPED: 528
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Administrative
Civil‐nonfamily
Civil‐family
Criminal
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page13
QuestionEight–ReportingThreats
WHEN YOU HAVE RECEIVED A THREAT OR IINAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION, TO WHOM DID YOU REPORT? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Thesecourt‐targetedactsofviolenceorattacksonstateandlocaljudgeshavecontinuedtogrowwithintherecentyears.DatafromtheNationalCenterforStateCourtsshowsasteadyclimbininappropriatecommunicationandthreats.viWithsuchahighnumberofincidentsoccurringatandawayfromthecourthouse,mostjudgesfindsomewaytoreporttheconduct.QuestionEightshowsthatahighpercentageofjudges(96.63%)arereportingthreats/inappropriatecommunicationstolawenforcementofficersandsecuritypersonnel.Althoughmostjudgesreporttheseincidents,therearestillsomenotreportingatall.SecurityprofessionalssuchastheNationalCenterforJudicialSecuritystronglyurgesthesejudgestostartreportingand“joinyourcourt’ssecuritycommitteeandifonedoesnotexist,createone.”vii
QUESTION EIGHT – REPORTING THREATS
ANSWERED: 891 SKIPPED: 390
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Havenotreceived
Didnotreport
Family
Colleagues
Superiors
Lawenforcement
Securitypersonnel
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page14
QuestionNine–PhysicalAttacks
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE? (DO NOT INCLUDE ASSAULTS UNRELATED TO YOUR POSITION.)
Whilethevastmajority(97.79%)ofjudgesnotedthattheyhadnotphysicallyattackedbecauseoftheirpositionasajudge,21judges(1.85%)hadbeenphysicallyattacked.Evenoneattackonajudgeistoomany.Theseresponsesfurtherstresstheneedforpropersecuritystaffandequipment.
QUESTION NINE – PHYSICAL ATTACKS
ANSWERED: 1,133 SKIPPED: 148
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Unsureofmotive
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page15
QuestionTen–EffectonDecision‐Making
HAS CONCERN FOR YOUR SECURITY EVER CAUSED YOU TO HESITATE BEFORE TAKING CERTAIN ACTION IN A CASE?
Alljudgesaretaskedwiththeresponsibilitytoaccuratelyinterpretthelawinavarietyofcircumstances.Judges’decisionsdirectlyimpactthelivesofthecitizenstheyserveorastheadministratorfortheNationalCenterforJudicialSecurityinstructs,“Itisasimple,indisputablefact:[incourt,]youdeterminewhowinsandwholoses.”viiiInterviewswithmanysuspectswhoconductedviolentattacksagainstjudicialofficersrevealthattheyfeltdisrespectedandthattheywerenotgivenachancetohavetheirvoicesheard.Judgesareofteninstructedonproceduralfairnesstolimitthepotentialforthemtofeelthattheyweretreatedunfairly.
Althoughitisessentialthatjudgesalwaysstrivetoremainimpartialbothinrealityandinthelitigants’eyes,theirconcernfortheirpersonalsecurityshouldneverbeastumblingblockthathindersapotentialdecision.QuestionTenwasaskedtoseeexactlyhowmanyjudgeshesitatebeforetakingcertainactioninacaseduetosafetyconcerns.Outofthe1,140judgesthatresponded,945(82.89%)ofthemrespondedthatsafetyconcernsdidnothaveaneffectondecision‐making.However,195(17.11%)respondedthattheirconcernforsecurityhascausedthemtohesitate.Thesefigureshelptoportrayhowdetrimentalthelackofsecuritycanbetoboththejudgeandthecitizenswhomtheyserve.
Commentsfromsurveyparticipants:
“Yes.Ihadacasewhereintheindividualappearingbeforewasmentallyillandhadpreviouslybeenconvictedofaggravatedstalking.Hebegantosendbizarreletterstome(e.g.,promisingthatwhenthecasewasoverhewasgoingtotakemetoanIslandthatDonaldTrumphadgivenhim,wherewewouldhavethreesonsandlivehappilyeverafter).Ifeltitwasnecessarytorecusemyselffromthecaseanditwasassignedtoamalecolleague.”
The"SovereignMan"issueremainsontheprimaryreasonIhavedelayedarulingonlybecauseofthe‘realthreat’theypose.Localcommunitiesandcountygovernmentminimizesthethreatswedealwith.IhavenofearofdoingthethingsweneedtodojustnotinthecourtroombutinwritingwhenIdidn'thavetodoitbefore.Iworryverymuchaboutthestafforothersintheroomforcourt.TheyaremastersofamplifyingthementalstressnobodyshouldhavetofaceanditIdon'tseeitdiminishinganytimesoon.Weareveryvulnerable!!!Anyonewhoisnotfollowingthelawandresortstooutsidesources(madeuplaw)shouldhavenostandinginourcourtroomsandweshouldnotneedtoliveinfearincourtoroutsideofitaswell.”
Page16
QUESTION TEN – EFFECT ON DECISION‐MAKING
ANSWERED: 1,140 SKIPPED: 141
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page17
QuestionEleven–EffectonPersonalConduct
HAS A CONCERN FOR YOUR SECURITY CAUSED YOU TO CHANGE YOUR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?
Alackofsecuritycanprovedetrimentaltoajudge’sabilitytoensurethatjusticeisadministered.Thislackofsecuritycoupledwithaconcernforpersonalsafetycancauseajudgetochangehisorherprofessionalconduct.Outofthe1,142judgesthatresponded,925(81%)ofthemindicatednochange,while217(19%)indicatedthattheyhadchangedtheirprofessionalconduct.Whiletheextentofthechangeisnotrepresentedhere,itcanrangeanywherefromroutinelyrequestingadditionalsecurityduringasentencinghearingtotheextrememeasureofcarryingafirearmwhileonthebench.ixIneachinstance,aconcernforsafetyistheimpetusfortheaction.Asonejudgerepliedtothisquestion,“Iusedtobefriendlierwithpeopleincourttoputthematease.NowIammorereticenttoengageinanyfriendlybanterorchitchatincourt.”
QUESTION 11 – EFFECT ON PERSONAL CONDUCT
ANSWERED: 1,142 SKIPPED: 139
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page18
QuestionTwelve–SecurityofFamilyMembers
Individualswhoholdthehonoredpositionofjudgeoftenfindthemselvesmakinghigh‐impactdecisionsthatpossessthepotentialtoupsetalargenumberofpeople.Althoughviolenceisnotalwaysaresultofalitigant’sdisfavoroverajudge’sdecision,itisapossibilitythatcancausejudgesandtheirfamiliesconcern.Questions12‐14weredesignedtoillustratehowbothjudgesandtheirfamiliesexperiencesafetyanxieties.
HAS ANY FAMILY MEMBER EVER FELT UNSAFE BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE?
Accordingtothe1,141judgesthatresponded,786(68.89%)answeredthattheirfamilymembershaveneverfeltunsafe.However,355(31.11%)judgesansweredthattheirfamilymembershavefeltunsafebecauseoftheirpositionasajudge.Havingasoundsecurityplan(whichiscommunicatedtothejudgeandhisorherfamily)canhelpsecuritypersonnelmanagethefearsofthosethattheyprotect.
QUESTION 12 – SECURITY OF FAMILY MEMBERS
ANSWERED: 1,141 SKIPPED: 140
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page19
QuestionThirteen–SafetyWorries
DO YOU WORRY ABOUT YOUR SAFETY BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE?
Themajorityofresponses(over80%)indicatethatjudgessometimesoroftenworryabouttheirsafetybecauseoftheirpositionasajudge.Providingjudicialsecurity‐basededucationwillhelpjudgesandotherjudicialofficersmanagetheirfearsbyprovidingsecuritytipsandpracticestokeepthemsafe.x
QUESTION 13 – SAFETY WORRIES
ANSWERED: 1,136 SKIPPED: 145
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Never
Sometimes
Often
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page20
QuestionFourteen–WorriesaboutFamilySafety
DO YOU WORRY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY’S SAFETY BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION AS A JUDGE?
AsinQuestion13,amajorityofjudgesworryabouttheirfamily’ssafetyinadditiontotheirown;868outofthe1,144responsesansweredthattheydoworryabouttheirfamily’ssafetybecauseoftheirposition.ThisquestionshouldespeciallyinterestjudicialsecurityprofessionalsaroundthecountrywhentheycompareittotheresponsesinQuestion13.Judges’responsestothesetwoquestionsshowthattheirpositioncausesthemtoworrymoreoftenabouttheirindividualsafetycomparedtotheirfamilies’safety.Thisisnotbecausetheycaremoreaboutthemselvesthantheydotheirfamilies;itisbecausetheyunderstandthatangrylitigantsconducttheseattacksorthreatstoseekrevengeindirectresponsetotheirdecisions.Judicialsecurityprofessionalsmustconstantlyadapttocombatthechallengestheselitigantspresentandultimatelyprovideasafer,moresecureenvironmentforthesejudgestoliveandwork.
QUESTION 14 – WORRIES ABOUT FAMILY SAFETY
ANSWERED: 1,144 SKIPPED: 137
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Never
Sometimes
Often
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page21
QuestionFifteen–SafetyofCourthouse/Building
IN GENERAL, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR COURTHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING IS:
Judgesweresplitonthisquestion.Asmallmajorityfeltthattheircourthouseorofficebuildingwassafeorverysafe(59.74%),butalmosthalf(40.26%)feltthattheircourthouseorofficebuildingwasunsafeorveryunsafe.
Courtroomviolencehasriseninthepasttwentyyears.TheCenterforJudicialandExecutiveSecurityconductedacourtroomviolencestudyandfoundthatcourtroomviolencehasrisenincrementallyfrom1970to2009.xi
QUESTION 15 – SAFETY OF COURTHOUSE/BUILDING
ANSWERED: 1,145 SKIPPED: 136
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Verysafe
Safe
Unsafe
Veryunsafe
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page22
QuestionSixteen–SecurityPersonnel
DOES YOUR WORKPLACE HAVE SECURITY PERSONNEL? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Securitypersonnelsuchassheriffs,policeofficers,bailiffsandunarmedguardssecurepersonsincludingjuries,judges,witnesses,officestaffandcitizensinsidecourtroomsandofficebuildings.Theirresponsiblyistopreventandprotectjusticebyensuringthesafetyofthepublicandpersonnelfrompotentiallyviolentincidents.
InthecommentssectionofQuestion16,115judgesexplainedthattheydidnothaveanysecuritypersonnelintheirbuildingsandtheironlymeansofcontactwithsecuritypersonnelwasthroughphonecallsorpanicbuttons.Thisinpartmaybearesultofbudgetaryconstraintswhichlimitthehiringofsecuritypersonnel.Additionalcommentswere:
“Ikeepafirearm,pepperspray,andabulletproofjacketinmyofficevehicles,andhome.”
“DependsontheCourthouse.Iworkin5courthousesonly2ofwhichhavesecurity.Onehasnoneatall,andtwohaveonesecurityguardfortheentirecomplexbutnometaldetector.”
“1officerfor11courtroomson2floors;acoupleofjudgeshaveconcealedcarryweapons.”
QUESTION 16 – SECURITY PERSONNEL
ANSWERED: 938 SKIPPED: 343
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unarmedguards
Marshals
Police
Sheriffs
Bailiffs
Contractguards
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page23
QuestionSeventeen–ExitNearBench
DOES YOUR COURT/HEARING ROOM HAVE AN EXIT NEAR YOUR BENCH THAT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC?
Moreriskofviolenceispresentedasthepubliccaneasilyaccessthejudges’bench.Nearlyone‐thirdofthejudges(30.69%)indicatedthattheydidnothaveanexitneartheirbenchthatwasnotaccessibletothepublic.
Somecourtroomsorhearingroomscanberedesignedtoaffordthejudgeampletimetoremovethemselvesfromthebenchineventofanemergencysituation.Ifpossible,judgesshouldplacethemselvesnearesttotheprimaryexitdoor.Tablescanbeplacedbetweenthejudgeandpartiesinordertoprovideanextrabarrierandtimetomoveawayfromthethreateithertopublicspaceorsecurespace.
QUESTION 17 – EXIT NEAR BENCH
ANSWERED: 1,147 SKIPPED: 134
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page24
QuestionEighteen–EscapePlanEstablished
DO YOU HAVE AN ESTABLISHED ESCAPE PLAN IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY IN YOUR COURT/HEARING ROOM?
Judgesandotherjudicialpersonnelshouldhaveemergencyplansestablishedincaseofassaults,activeshooters,fires,naturaldisasters,bombsandothercrises.Creatingemergencyplansandpracticingemergencyproceduresarewaysthatjudgescankeepthemselvessafe.Emergencyplansmayincludemaps,photographsandwritteninstructions.Writteninstructionsmustinstructpersonnelwhattodointheeventofanemergency.
Workplacepersonnelshouldunderstandemergencieshappenwhenleastexpectedandonemustbeprepared.“Ifyourcourthousehasbeenfreeofviolenceforthepast50years,thatisnoassurancethatitwillnotbecomethesceneofviolencetomorrow.”xiiAllpersonnelshouldbepreparedwhenanemergencystrikes.
QUESTION 18 – ESCAPE PLAN ESTABLISHED
ANSWERED: 1,146 SKIPPED: 135
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page25
QuestionNineteen–PublicAccesstoChambers/Office
DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR CHAMBERS/OFFICE?
Workplacepersonnelareindangerwhenthepublichasfullaccesstotheirchambersoroffices.Question19revealedthat334(29.09%)ofjudges’officesorchamberswereaccessibletothepublic.Personschoosingtoattackjudgestakethetimetoplan,research,andact;theyplanwho,where,whenandhowtheactwilloccur,theyresearchonlinesecurityplansandmosteffectiveviolentattackmethods;andtheycarryouttheirplansiftheycan.Restrictingaccessbythepublicisoneimportantstepinanoverallsafetyplan.
Judgesmustbeconcernedfortheirsafetyandthesafetyofothers.Judgesshouldbeawareoftheirsurroundingsastheywalkfromlocationtolocation.Theymustwatchforsuspiciousactivityandreportanyinstancesofinappropriatecommunicationsandthreatstoauthoritiesimmediately.Judgesshouldconsiderre‐assessingtheircourtroomsandofficesforrisksandvieforadditionalfundsforsecurityintheformofpersonnel,cameras,x‐raymachines,benchexitsthatarenotaccessibletothepublicandothermeansofbolsteringsecurity.
QUESTION 19 – PUBLIC ACCESS TO CHAMBERS/OFFICE
ANSWERED: 1,148 SKIPPED: 133
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page26
QuestionTwenty–WorkplaceSecurityMeasures
DOES YOUR WORKPLACE HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Securitymeasuresareestablishedtoprotectallpersonnelfromdangeroussituations.Workplacesmayhavemagnetometers,x‐raymachinesandhandheldwandstodetectmetal,duressalarms,warningsignsindicatingcontemptofcourtispossibleifaviolationofcourtrulesoccurs,camerasincourt/hearingrooms,andworkplacesthataresecuredfromgeneralpublicaccess.Othersecuritymeasuresmentionedbyjudgesinthissurveyaresecuredparking,bulletproofbenches,soundmonitorsinthecourtroom,firearmscarriedbythejudge,bulletproofvests,handheldradiosforcourtstaff,camerasinallunsecuredareasandhallways,windowstoseewhoisonthepremises,panicalarms,andpepperandwaspspray.Thedatadoesnotsharewhatmethodisbestintheeventofextremeemergenciesasx‐raymachines,handheldwandsareusedaspreventativemeasuresandcamerascaptureactsinprogress.
Duressalarmswerethemostpopularsmallersecurityfeatureusedbyjudges(79.70%).Theduressalarmsalertdesignatedpersonneltosweepcourtroomsoroffices.Othermeasuresnotedbyjudgeswere:
“Icarryaninstitutionalwalkie‐talkiewithemergencybutton.” “Wecarryguns.” “Althoughthereareduressalarmsinstalledinmycourtroomandchambers,Iam
uncertainwheretheyare.” “Manyofourhearingsareatschooldistrictfacilitiesthatdonothavethesesame
protections.” “Myofficeisnotopentothepublicbutisaccessiblethrutheclerk'sofficeandthey
keeptheirdooropen.”
Page27
QUESTION 20 – WORKPLACE SECURITY MEASURES
ANSWERED: 1,054 SKIPPED: 227
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Postedcontemptwarnings
Securedworkspace
Cameraincourt/hearingroom
Duressalarmincourt/hearingroom
Duressalarminchambers
Hand‐heldwandstodetectmetal
X‐raymachines
Magnetometers
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page28
QuestionTwenty‐One–ContemptPower
DO YOU HAVE THE POWER TO HOLD SOMEONE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT?
Contemptofcourtcanbeusedasatooltoupholdtheintegrityofthecourtroomaswellasreinforcerespectforthejudgeandthejudicialprocess.Thevastmajorityofjudgestakingthesurvey(84.82%)reportedthattheydohavethepowertoholdsomeoneincontemptofcourt.Asimportantasthispowerisitisequallyimportanttohaveanofficeravailabletocarryoutsuchanorderinatimelyfashion.
QUESTION 21 – CONTEMPT POWER
ANSWERED: 1,146 SKIPPED: 135
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page29
QuestionTwenty‐Two–UseofContemptforSecurityViolation
HAVE YOU HELD SOMEONE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR A SECURITY VIOLATION?
Question22illustratestherealitythatoutofthe1,015judgesthatansweredthequestion,870(85.71%)answeredtheyhavenot.Regardlessofwhetherjudgesactuallyexercisecertainpowers,itisessentialforthemtohavetheabilitytodosoinordertofurtherprotectthemselvesaswellasallcourtroomactors.
QUESTION 22 – USE OF CONTEMPT FOR SECURITY VIOLATION
ANSWERED: 1,015 SKIPPED: 266
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page30
QuestionTwenty‐Three–AbilitytoMoveHearing
DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE A HEARING (BECAUSE OF SECURITY CONCERNS) TO A MORE SECURE COURT/HEARING ROOM?
Nearlyhalf(46.29%)ofthejudgeswerenotabletomovetheirhearinglocation.Policiesshouldincludetheauthorizationtomovehearinglocationstoothercourtroomsinemergencysituations.
QUESTION 23 – ABILITY TO MOVE HEARING
ANSWERED: 1,145 SKIPPED: 136
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page31
QuestionTwenty‐Four–MovingaHearing
IF YES, HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO DO SO?
InQuestion24,148(18.71%)ofthejudgeshadtomovetheirhearingsforsecurityreasons.Thequestiondoesnotexplorethespecificreasonsformovingthehearing.Evenso,itillustratesthefactthatnearly19%ofjudgesneededtomoveaproceedingduetosecurity;inQuestion23,almost47%ofjudgesdon’thavethisoption.Providingalternatelocationsforcourtproceedingsshouldbeconsideredbyjurisdictionswhocurrentlydon’thaveasysteminplace.
QUESTION 24 – MOVING A HEARING
ANSWERED: 791 SKIPPED: 490
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page32
QuestionTwenty‐Five–HearingLocations
WHERE DO YOU CONDUCT MOST OF YOUR HEARINGS? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Hearingsmaytakeplaceinestablishedcourtrooms,conferenceroomsatprimaryplacesofwork,personaloffices,andlocationsoutsideoftheprimaryplaceofwork.Offsitehearinglocationsmayincludeschooldistricts,communitycolleges,statebaroffices,firehallsandjailcourtrooms.
Tosecureacourtroomorotherhearingroom,personsandtheirbelongingsshouldbescannedbeforeenteringtheofficeorcourtrooms.Camerasandsoundmonitorsshouldwatchandlistenforsuspiciousactivityinthebuilding.Securitypersonnelifpossibleshouldbestationedinsidethecourtroomoroutsideofthecourthouse.Theuseofproperlymaintainedsecurityinstrumentsandwelltrainedpersonnelenhancesjudicialsecurity.
QUESTION 25 – HEARING LOCATIONS
ANSWERED: 1,148 SKIPPED: 133
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Outisdelocation
Personaloffice
Conferenceroom‐primaryworkplace
Establishedcourt/hearingroom
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page33
QuestionTwenty‐Six–PersonalSafetyMeasures
DO YOU DO/HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Securitymeasuresaremeanttokeeppersonnelintheworkplacesafe.Smallpreventativemeasureslikevaryingroutesbetweenhomeandwork,lockingdoorsandwindows(includinggarage),utilizingahomesecuritysystem,installingopenandilluminatedsightlinesaroundthehome,creatingsaferoomsandlimitinginformationontheInternetwillincreasesecurity.
Varyingroutesonstreetsandhighwaysisasafetypracticewhichallowsjudgestoidentifyiftheyarebeingfollowed.Judgesmustbeawareoftheirsurroundingsastheymovefromplacetoplace.Plannedroutestopssuchaslibraries,banks,postoffices,andgrocerystoresshouldbeaddedtoanoverallsenseofawareness.Developingasecurity‐consciousmindsetinconjunctionwithpracticingsomeproactivestepswillhelpminimizecomplacencyandlowertheriskofdangerousencounters.
QUESTION 26 – PERSONAL SECURITY MEASURES
ANSWERED: 1,096 SKIPPED: 185
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Saferoom
Open/illuminatedsightlines
Homesurveillance
Homesecuritysystem
Personalmailreceivedatcourthouse
Limitfamily'spersonalinfo
Limitpersonalinfo
Lockeddoors/windows
Variedtravelroutesto/fromwork
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page34
QuestionTwenty‐Seven–PersonalVehicle
DO YOU DRIVE A VEHICLE THAT IDENTIFIES YOU AS A JUDGE (VEHICLE MARKINGS, GOVERNMENT TAGS, VANITY PLATES, ETC.)?
Onlyaverysmallnumberofjudgessurveyedindicatedthattheydroveavehiclethatidentifiedthemasajudge.Judgescangreatlymitigatetheriskofpotentialattackersidentifyingthembynotdrivingaself‐identifyingvehicle.Whileasmallpercentageofjudgesinthissurveyhaveaccesstovehicleswithsuchvanityplatesitshouldbenotedthatsucheasilyidentifiabletagsandvehiclemarkingsallowforeasiertargeting.
QUESTION 27 – PERSONAL VEHICLE
ANSWERED: 1,150 SKIPPED: 131
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Sometimes
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page35
QuestionTwenty‐Eight–OffsiteHearingSecurityMeasures
WHEN YOU DO CONDUCT OFFSITE HEARINGS, DOES THE HEARING LOCATION USUALLY HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Camerasarecrucialasthey“deterdisruptiveorviolentbehavior”andcapture“apprehendersorconvictedperpetrators”intheact.Whencamerasareinstalled,“oneshouldfacethepublicgalleryandtheother,thebench.”xiiiFundingwillhavetoberequestedforthissecurityfeature.Datafromthesurveydoesnotconcludepricesofthecameras,thenumberofthecamerasandwherethecameraswerelocatedintheoffsitelocation.
“NOTHING!!” “Dependsonlocation.Icanrequestfederalprotectiveserviceifnecessarybutmust
payforservice.” “Wecangetsecurityofficersbuttheyarenotroutine.” “About50%ofourlocationshavesecurityfeatures.”
QUESTION 28 – OFFSITE SECURITY MEASURES
ANSWERED: 325 SKIPPED: 956
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Securityofficers
Camerainhearingroom
Duressalarminhearingroom
Hand‐heldwandstodetectmetal
X‐raymachines
Magnetometers
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page36
QuestionTwenty‐Nine–FamilySafetyPlan
DOES YOUR FAMILY HAVE AN ESTABLISHED EMERGENCY PROCEDURE IN THE EVENT AN INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION IS RECEIVED AT HOME?
Judgesshouldestablishafamilyemergencyprocedureplan.Question29illustratesthenumberoffamiliesthatdonothaveanestablishedemergencyprocedureplan.TherearemanyusefulpublicationsprovidedtojudgessuchastheNationalCenterforJudicialSecurity’sOffsiteSecurityGuide.xivThisguidepresentsjudgeswithadetailedstep‐by‐steplistoutliningpracticestoemploywhenawayfromthecourthouse.Judgesshoulduseguideslikethistoaugmentcurrentemergencyproceduresandtoenhancecomprehensivesafety.Judicialofficersshouldcommunicatesecurityconcernswiththeirsecuritypersonnel,staffandfamilyinordertofurtherimproveoverallsafetypractices.
QUESTION 29 – FAMILY SAFETY PLAN
ANSWERED: 1,144 SKIPPED: 137
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
No
Yes
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page37
QuestionThirty–ComponentsofComprehensiveProgram
IN YOUR OPINION, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING FEATURES MUST BE INCLUDED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY PROGRAM? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Itisrecommendedthatacomprehensivesecurityprogramincludesecuritypersonnel,magnetometers,monthlysecuritymeetings/briefings,orroutinesecuritytrainingsanddrills.Goodcommunicationisthefoundationofanythrivingrelationship.Regularmeetingsshouldberequiredforallworkplacepersonnelinordertoassesssecuritycurrentsecurityrelatedincidents,tobrainstormnewideasofsecuritymeasures,todiscusssecuritybudgets,andtomakeoverallsecurityupdatesforofficeandjudicialpersonnel.
QUESTION 30 – COMPONENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM
ANSWERED: 1,130 SKIPPED: 151
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Routinesecuritytraining
Monthlymeetings
Dedicatedsecuritypersonnel
Magnetometers/personnelatentry
Securitypersonnelatentrypoints
Securitypersonelatallhearings
Homealarm
NumberofJudgesResponding
Page38
Conclusion
Thesurveyconductedin2014echoedearlierfindingsofinappropriatecontactsandthreatstojudgesaspartofinherentintheirpositionsasdecision‐makers.Policymakers,courtsecuritystaffandothersmaynotbeabletoeliminatethreat,butthreatcanbemanagedandmitigatedbothinandoutofthecourthouse.Personalsafetyplanning,familysafetyplanning,andthoughtfulcourthousesecuritymeasurescanreduceriskandbolsterpeaceofmindforjudges.
TheNationalJudicialCollegewishestothankthejudgeswhoparticipatedinthissurveyandsharedtheirexperiences.Understandingthenatureofinappropriatecommunicationandperceivedthreatiscriticaltoriskmitigation.Weencouragecontinueddialogueonmattersofsafety,andarecommittedtoprovidingthespace,opportunity,andassistancetodoso.
Page39
Endnotes
iTheNationalCenterforStateCourts,SecurityPlanningandSecurity.Lastretrievedfrom www.ncsc.org/Services‐and‐Experts/Areas‐of‐expertise/Emergency‐planning‐and‐security.aspxonDecember4,2014.
ii The NJC and the USMS wish to thank Judge Charles Weller (NV), Judge Susan Conyers(OK),JudgeJamesBrandlin(CA),JudgeChristyYoshitomi(WA),JohnF.Muffler,ChiefInspector(B.A.TempleUniversity,M.S.,St.Joseph'sUniversity),HeatherWalker,SeniorInspector(B.A.FloridaA&MUniversity;M.S.FloridaInternationalUniversity,M.P.S.degreeinSafetyandSecurityLeadership),RobynAnderson,AssistantChief(B.A.IowaStateUniversity;MBAGeorgiaStateUniversity),AdamMank,Intern(B.S.,LibertyUniversityEmyleeBogart,Intern,B.S.,LibertyUniversity)andAndrewLoucks,Intern(B.S.,ArizonaStateUniversity)fortheireffortsindevelopingthesurveyandtheaccompanyingreport.
iiiSeegenerally,TheNationalCenterforJudicialSecuritywebsite,www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.LastvisitedDecember4,2014.
ivNeilAlanWeiner,DonaldJ.Harris,FrederickS.Calhoun,VictorE.Flango,DonaldHardenbergh,CharlotteKirschner,ThomasO’Reilly,RobertSobolevitch,andBryanVossekuilhttp,AmericanJudgesAssociation,SafeandSecure:ProtectingJudicialOfficials,CourtReviewIssue36‐4(Winter2000).Lastretrievedfromhttp://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr36‐4/36‐4SafeSecure.pdfonDecember9,2014.
vHon.CharlesWeller,Ph.D.,StatutoryResponsetoCourtSecurityConcerns.Lastretrievedfrompqdtopen.proquest.com/pqdtopen/doc/1496773512.html?FMT=ABSonDecember4,2014.
viTheNationalCenterforStateCourts,CourthouseSecurityIncidentsTrendingUpward:ThechallengesFacingStateCourtsTodayfromTrendsinStateCourts(2012).Lastretrievedfromwww.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/future‐trends‐2012/home/Better‐Courts/1‐1‐Courthouse‐Security‐Incidents.aspxonDecember4,2014.
viiSeeNoteiii,above.
viiiU.S.MarshalsService,PracticestoEmployWhenAwayfromtheCourthouse:AU.S.MarshalsServiceGuideJudicialSecurityDivision(Publication94,revised12/2008).Lastretrievedfromhttp://www.judicialsecuritypa.com/doc/ResourceMateralVolume2.pdfonDecember9,2014.
ixForfirearmconsiderations,seeJohnMuffler,ProtectingyoufromtheMadnessintheShadows:TenStepstoMakingYouMoreSecure,CaseinPoint(2009).Lastretrievedfromhttp://www.judges.org/pdf/caseinpoint_2009.pdfonDecember9,2014.
xTherearemanyresourcesforthistypeofeducation.BoththeNationalCenterforJudicialSecurityandTheNationalJudicialCollegeoffereducationalprogrammingonjudicialsecurity.TheCenterofferstechnicalassistancetocourtpersonnel.
xiSeenotei,above.
xiiId.
Page40
xiiiT.Fautsko,S.Berson&SteveSwensen,TheNationalCenterforStateCourts,StatusofCourtSecurityinStateCourts:ANationalPerspective(2013).Lastretrievedfromhttp://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/facilities/id/184onDecember9,2014.
xivSeenoteviii,above.