USMS survey report - The National Judicial College · This report tabulates the survey results and...

©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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

No

Yes


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


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


520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600

No

Yes


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.”

QUESTION FIVE – MEANS OF THREAT


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Socialmedia

Email

Textmessage

Orally‐phone

Orally‐inperson

Letterathome

Letteratwork

Stalking/suspiciousbehavior


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

No

Yes


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


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Administrative

Civil‐nonfamily

Civil‐family

Criminal


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


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Havenotreceived

Didnotreport

Family

Colleagues

Superiors

Lawenforcement

Securitypersonnel


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


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Unsureofmotive

No

Yes


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.”

QUESTION TEN – EFFECT ON DECISION‐MAKING


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Never

Sometimes

Often


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Never

Sometimes

Often


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Verysafe

Safe

Unsafe

Veryunsafe


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Unarmedguards

Marshals

Police

Sheriffs

Bailiffs

Contractguards


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

No

Yes


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.”

QUESTION 20 – WORKPLACE SECURITY MEASURES


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Postedcontemptwarnings

Securedworkspace

Cameraincourt/hearingroom

Duressalarmincourt/hearingroom

Duressalarminchambers

Hand‐heldwandstodetectmetal

X‐raymachines

Magnetometers


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


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

No

Yes


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


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Outisdelocation

Personaloffice

Conferenceroom‐primaryworkplace

Establishedcourt/hearingroom


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Saferoom

Open/illuminatedsightlines

Homesurveillance

Homesecuritysystem

Personalmailreceivedatcourthouse

Limitfamily'spersonalinfo

Limitpersonalinfo

Lockeddoors/windows

Variedtravelroutesto/fromwork


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


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Sometimes

No

Yes


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


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Securityofficers

Camerainhearingroom

Duressalarminhearingroom

Hand‐heldwandstodetectmetal

X‐raymachines

Magnetometers


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


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

No

Yes


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


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Routinesecuritytraining

Monthlymeetings

Dedicatedsecuritypersonnel

Magnetometers/personnelatentry

Securitypersonnelatentrypoints

Securitypersonelatallhearings

Homealarm


Conclusion

Thesurveyconductedin2014echoedearlierfindingsofinappropriatecontactsandthreatstojudgesaspartofinherentintheirpositionsasdecision‐makers.Policymakers,courtsecuritystaffandothersmaynotbeabletoeliminatethreat,butthreatcanbemanagedandmitigatedbothinandoutofthecourthouse.Personalsafetyplanning,familysafetyplanning,andthoughtfulcourthousesecuritymeasurescanreduceriskandbolsterpeaceofmindforjudges.

TheNationalJudicialCollegewishestothankthejudgeswhoparticipatedinthissurveyandsharedtheirexperiences.Understandingthenatureofinappropriatecommunicationandperceivedthreatiscriticaltoriskmitigation.Weencouragecontinueddialogueonmattersofsafety,andarecommittedtoprovidingthespace,opportunity,andassistancetodoso.

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.

xiiiT.Fautsko,S.Berson&SteveSwensen,TheNationalCenterforStateCourts,StatusofCourtSecurityinStateCourts:ANationalPerspective(2013).Lastretrievedfromhttp://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/facilities/id/184onDecember9,2014.

xivSeenoteviii,above.

USMS survey report - The National Judicial College · This report tabulates the survey results and...

Documents

Transcript of USMS survey report - The National Judicial College · This report tabulates the survey results and...