3. To list and define the various types of
crisis that can occur in a courtroom.
Learning Objectives
After this lecture, you should be able to complete the following Learning Outcomes
14.1
4. 14.1 Crisis in the Courtroom
OVERVIEW
• Between 1980 and 1993 there 3,096 threatening communications and
assaults made against federal judges.
• Between 1997 and 1998 there were 700 inappropriate or threatening
communications to federal judges.
• In a survey of Pennsylvania judges, 12 reported that they had been
attacked in their own courtroom, and 533 had been the target of threats.
• A Youtube.com search using the terms “courtroom fight” revealed 515
videos. A search using the terms “judge attacked” revealed 1060 videos.
• A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health revealed that
Deputy sheriffs and courtroom bailiffs trailed only taxi drivers for the
highest workplace homicide rate.
5. 14.1 Crisis in the Courtroom
OVERVIEW
• The courtroom is a breeding ground for crisis, as emotions run high,
and oftentimes the target of revenge is sitting only feet away.
• It is a constant juggling act to protect those in the courtroom without
defeating the constitutional principles of a free and open trial, due
process for civil litigants, and the ability of a defendant to face his or her
accusers as an innocent person till proven guilty.
• The courtroom must be free of circumstances that may be considered
prejudicial, such as shackles, handcuffs, and even jail clothing while
criminal defendants are in the presence of a jury.
6. To describe the obstacles to
maintaining a secure courtroom.
Learning Objectives
After this lecture, you should be able to complete the following Learning Outcomes
14.2
7. 14.2 Obstacles
Obstacles to a Safe Courtroom
• The Problem of Funding
There is a misperception that a courtroom must be a safe place due to the presence of
security personnel. Those holding the purse strings are less inclined to appropriate funds.
• The Problem of Preparedness
In many jurisdictions, courtroom security is carried out by retired police officers who are no
longer physically and mentally prepared for the task. There is also a lack of training.
• The Problem of Complacency
Without constant training, it becomes easy for security personnel, especially in smaller
jurisdictions, to become complacent.
• The Problem of an Unsafe Infrastructure
Many older courts facilities simply were not designed with safety and security in mind.
8. To explain the risk continuum and the
use of risk assessment techniques.
Learning Objectives
After this lecture, you should be able to complete the following Learning Outcomes
14.3
9. 14.3 Assessing Risk
The Risk Continuum
It is critical that court personnel assess the risk of any given
proceeding. This risk assessment is based on a number of factors;
• Criminal vs. Civil?
• Will victims or their families be present?
• Is there a chance for long term incarceration or death?
• Is someone losing their property of children?
• Does defendant have a violent history?
• Has the defendant talked of or attempted escape?
• Are there gang affiliations involved?
10. 14.3 Assessing Risk
The Minnesota Model
Many courtroom facilities have
adopted the Risk Assessment
Profile developed by the state of
Minnesota Conference of
Judges (1997). It begins by
looking at the inherent risk level
of a proceeding.
11. 14.3 Assessing Risk
RISK CIVIL TRIAL CRIMINAL TRIAL
LOW • Class Actions • Defendant not present
MODERATE
• Jury Trials.
• Prisoner Petitions.
• Pro Se Actions.
• High-profile/ Media
Intensified.
• Threat Assessment/
• Moderate Rating
• Strong Identification and
Ideological views with
known threat groups
• Defendant not in custody – on
bond.
• Threat assessment – Moderate
rating.
• High-profile/ Media
intensified.
• Probation or parole violators.
• Highly emotional/ Inner-
relationships.
• Multiple defendants.
• Repeat offender(s).
• Anti-Society behavioral
characteristics.
HIGH
• Highly emotional/ Inner-
relationships
• Associated violent history
or actions
• Threat assessment – high
rating
• Strong identification and
• Ideologicalviews with known
Threatgroups.
• Threat assessment – High
rating.
• Escapee from custody or
commitment.
• Violent actions/ Outbursts
while in custody.
• Defense or plea based on
insanity.
• Mass or serial sexual predator.
• Murderer/ contract killer.
• Protected witness.
• Multiple defendants.
• Defendants with violent
criminal history.
The Minnesota Model
It then takes into
consideration the inherent risk
level of the participants to the
proceeding.
Each proceeding is then
assigned a baseline risk level,
and this level determines the
level of staffing by security
personnel.
Level 1 – Low
Level 2 – Moderate
Level 3 – High
Level 4 – High (with enhanced
security).
12. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
13. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
EX: Traffic ticket, most misdemeanor offenses,
sentencing to probation for minor offenses, small
claims.
14. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
EX: Being sued, Tax court, property disputes,
marital disputes, family services hearings.
15. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
EX: Typically involves a fear of losing something;
child custody, contentious divorces, long-term or
death penalty sentencing, losing property to a
government entity.
16. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
EX: Any proceeding where a participant’s anger
toward a specific person is apparent; the most
contentious divorce cases, cases involving threats
against the judge, prosecutors, or cops, family members of victims present,
opposing gang members present, anti-government types, volatile civil disputes.
17. 14.3 Assessing Risk
Inconvenience Frustration Fear Directed Anger
Profiling the Potential Emotional Response
Another method of profiling is to look at the potential emotional
response of the participants rather than the type of proceeding.
The potential emotionality of a proceeding serves
as a baseline for the deployment of resources.
The level of emotionality is determined through
intelligence gathering, proceeding type, and past
interactions with the participants.
18. 14.3 Assessing Risk
A Comprehensive Profiling Scheme
This scheme provides a baseline risk level based on all
factors; participants, proceeding type, and potential
emotionality.
CIVIL FAMILY CIVIL ECONOMIC CIVIL PROTECTIVE
CRIMINAL NON-
VIOLENT
CRIMINAL VIOLENT
NON-ELEVATED
• Non-contested
divorce
• Family services-
compliant parties
• Bankruptcy
• Small claims
• Product liability
• Protective Order-
petitioner only
• Initial appearance
• Misdemeanor trial
• Video arraignment
• Status hearing
ELEVATED
• Contested divorce
• Family services-non
compliant parties
• Parental rights
• Foreclosure
• IRS proceedings
• Tax protestors
• partner lawsuits
• Seizures/ forfeitures
• Land disputes
• Protective order-
defendant present
• Involuntary
commitments
• High profile/ media
• Defendant in custody
• Victims present
• Verdict/ Sentencing
• Contempt of Court
• Trial – Defendant in
custody
• Victim family present
• Bond hearing
• Initial appearance
• Gang affiliation
• Verdict
DANGEROUS
• Contested divorce-
Child custody or prior
threats
• Family services-child
removal
• Tax protestor-prior
threats
• Lawsuits-prior threats
• Protective order-
defendant present w/
prior threats
• Significant fraud-
victims present
• Victims present-prior
threat against defendant
• Verdict-victim family
present
• Sentencing
• Defendant testimony
• Opposing gang
present
Under this scheme there are 15 risk environments, with a predetermined resource
allocation for each, with additional resources allocated as needed and as
circumstances change.
19. To summarize both reactive and
proactive courtroom security
measures.
Learning Objectives
After this lecture, you should be able to complete the following Learning Outcomes
14.4
20. 14.4 Security Measures
Proactive Measures
Prisoner Transport –
1. Prisoners should be transported in a caged vehicle with a
barrier between them and the security personnel.
2. Each transport should include at least two security personnel.
3. Both the prisoner and the transport vehicle should be fully
searched prior to every transport.
4. Prisoners must be kept under observation at all times.
5. Prisoners should never have their restraints removed until
safely inside the building and in a secure location.
21. 14.4 Security Measures
Proactive Measures
Pre and Post-Hearing Activities
1. Once inside the court facility, detained prisoners should be
held in a secure holding cell until being escorted to and from
the courtroom.
2. Clothing changes should take place inside the holding cell.
3. At no time should an unrestrained prisoner be left alone with a
single security officer.
4. When taken to or from the courtroom, prisoners should be
moved in restraints by a secure route, and by at least two
security guards. Restraints should not be removed until just
outside the courtroom door. Prisoners should not be allowed
to talk to anyone but their lawyers and security personnel.
22. 14.4 Security Measures
Proactive Measures
Courtroom Security
• Level One: No security recommended unless special
circumstances call for it.
• Level Two: At least one security officer should be present.
• level Three: At least two security officers should be present
• Level Four: At least three security officers should be present.
These requirements are in addition to those security officers
escorting and guarding detained prisoners.
When detained prisoners are present, facilities follow a one-on-one-plus-one
standard. This means that for every detained prisoner, there should be a security
officer detailed specifically to them, with at least one additional officer in the
courtroom over and above those detailed to protect the courtroom. So for
example, a level three hearing with two detained defendants would require
2 courtroom officers plus 2 transport officers plus 1 additional = 5 officers.
23. 14.4 Security Measures
Proactive Measures
Courtroom Security
Inside the courtroom, officers should be positioned to intercept
any sudden advances toward the judge, jury, or witness, as well
as to block any possible escape routes by a detained defendant.
24. 14.4 Security Measures
Reactive Measures
Crisis Alerts
• Code Green – A security officer signals this code when tensions
are rising inside the courtroom and the potential for violence is
increasing.
• Code Blue – Signals violence inside the courtroom, such as a
fight. Reinforcements respond quickly and in force.
• Code Red – Signals an escaped prisoner. Facility immediately
locked down.
• Code White – Signals that weapons have been used. Additional
officers are able to respond with appropriate caution.
• Code Orange – Signals a hostage situation.
25. 14.4 Security Measures
Reactive Measures
Crisis Alerts
All security personnel are trained in what to do in the event any of
these alerts are sounded. Also, all judges receive the same
training, and are able to signal the same alerts, usually through a
silent alarm system.
All security personnel have communication devices with a
central dispatch center. Additionally, in the event of a crisis, there
is a predetermined command structure in place.
Crisis intervention then =
Communication + Command Structure + Response Protocols
26. 14.4 Security Measures
Trends in Courtroom Safety
Video Arraignment
The court system is limited in its ability to keep a criminal
defendant from being present in the courtroom. However during
ARRAIGNMENT they are able to. This is typically a very short
hearing during which the judge advises the defendant of the
charges against them, and asks how they wish to plead.
Many jurisdictions are now doing arraignments of detained
prisoners via video-conferencing. The defendant never leaves
the jail. This reduces the possible danger of bringing unrestrained
prisoners into the courtroom at a very early point in their
incarceration, a time which is typically very tense as the reality of
their circumstances hits them fully.
The use of this method has been criticized.
27. 14.4 Security Measures
Trends in Courtroom Safety
New Courthouse Design
New courthouses are being designed with safety in mind. They
are designed to maximize the containment of a crisis by:
1. Minimizing opportunities for escape
2. Maximizing the safety of judges
3. Preventing contact between detained prisoners and the
public
28. 14.4 Security Measures
Trends in Courtroom Safety
New Courthouse Design
One of the most important elements of design is the flow pattern.
This involves circulation patterns inside the building that never
cross or comingle.
• The Public Circulation System – This system allows for public access through a
public entrance to all public service areas inside the building. People move
through this zone unescorted.
• The Restricted Circulation System – These areas are off limits to the public. It
includes courtrooms (locked except during hearings), Judge’s chambers, and
security officers’ areas. This zone includes a secure parking garage for judges, with
a secure walkway and elevators between the garage and their chambers.
• The Secure Circulation System – This is the zone reserved for prisoner transport. It
runs from a secure sally port to holding cells outside the courtrooms. The
corresponding walkways and elevators never cross or comingle the other zones.
29. 14.4 Security Measures
Trends in Courtroom Safety
Other Design Considerations
• Each courtroom should have a clear separation between the
spectator area and the area where the lawyers and participants
sit. This may be accomplished with a short partition wall, or even
bullet proof glass.
• The Judge’s bench should of a height and configuration that
impedes a hostile advance by someone, and should be equipped
with some type of silent duress alarm.
• Courtroom furniture should be designed without hidden recesses
where guns or other weapons could be hidden.
