Posted: February 28, 2023
Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed April 14, 2023
CJA06-0507. Court visitors (AMEND). The proposed amendments replace “protected person” and “ward” with “respondent” where applicable; clarify who may receive a court visitor report or notice; require court visitors to use a Council-approved Order on Review form; and provide the court with broad discretion in taking action on a court visitor report. Language access requirements are addressed elsewhere in the Code of Judicial Administration.
CJA03-0414. Court security (AMEND). The proposed amendments require officers in plain clothes to wear something that identifies them as law enforcement; require officers to use a duty-type holster with a user-operated restraining device if a firearm is visible; clarify who is allowed to carry firearms in courthouses; and otherwise clean up or streamline the rule.
Re amendments to CJA03-0414. Although the rule references 78A-2-203, I do not see that the rule complies with paragraph (2)(b) relating to setting up a firearm storage area for persons with lawfully carried firearms. This paragraph uses the mandate “shall.” It is not an option to not provide such storage in any courthouse protected by a secured area. There are patrons who may park outside the courthouses or take public transportation. By not complying with section 203, this rule puts these patrons at risk as they travel to and from the courthouse and may create liability for the State in the event of injury or death to such patrons who would have had a defensive firearm but for the rule (which again, does not comply with section 203). The Judicial Council should mandate all courthouses with secured areas to strictly comply with UCA 78A-2-203.
“Law Enforcement Official” has been deleted on lines 199-200. These officials, also defined in Utah Code 53-5-711, have the same training requirements and requalification requirements as judges/commissioners. Many courthouses do not have a secure storage for firearms available and would require that we leave our firearms in a vehicle or other location, which inherently leaves us other officials more vulnerable that the judges that are still allowed to possess firearms and have secure parking areas associated with the court. We don’t advertise or announce our possession of the firearm publicly, but we do sign a log and quietly notify appropriate court security when we do have it. We follow and adhere to the same guidelines as police officers in this regard and are considered part of our local security plan. If judges and court commissioners are allowed to possess firearms in accordance with this provision, then law enforcement officials similarly qualified should also be included. Please consider revising that provision.
Regarding Rule CJA03-0414, the proposed amendments appear to prevent a prosecuting attorney from carrying a firearm in a courthouse. As a prospecting attorney for Weber County, I am opposed to this. As prosecutors, we tend to upset people (whether it be the defendant, a family member, or others associated with the defendant) when we prosecute people. While the inside of a courthouse is relatively secure, a prosecutor faces the most danger from upset persons while the prosecutor is outside of the courthouse, i.e., transitioning from the parking lot to the courthouse. If a prosecutor cannot bring a firearm into the courthouse, he/she will be required to leave it in his car, thus leaving him exposed in the parking lot to those who would seek to do him harm.
By excluding “law enforcement officials”, this rule change creates a potential conflict with Utah Code 53-5-711.
I am a prosecutor and have carried my firearm concealed responsibly in the courtroom since my first year working for the county. I have been a part of our local security plan and participated in training and qualification assessments diligently every year.
There is no reason to exclude law enforcement officials where we are subject to the same training and currency standards.
I have a few issues with one portion of this proposed rule:
This proposed rule strips “law enforcement official” in section (8)(B)(ii) as someone who can ever conceal carry in a courtroom – regardless of what the local security plan says, and regardless of their training and skill in handling a firearm.
First, this proposed rule overrides the discretion of local courts to determine their security plans and places my colleagues and me at risk of harm in the process. Under the old version of this rule, if a local court did not want judges, court commissioners, or law enforcement officials (all three being the LEOJ permit under 53-5-711) to carry in the courtroom – they could exercise their local discretion under their local security plan to ban those individuals from carrying in the courtroom. Under the proposed change, even if a local court wanted to, they could not permit law enforcement officials to conceal carry under their local security plan. What this board is doing through this proposed change is arbitrarily stripping discretion on how courts can formulate their local security plans, and that is unacceptable.
Second, this proposed change also strips the state law of its intended purpose in creating the LEOJ permit – for prosecutors and judges to be able to protect themselves from violent offenders. It is the same reason prosecutors and judges can remove their addresses from being publicly listed. I put away bad guys and I have received personal threats from some of the people I have put away over the years. Our local district court does not have lockers for people to check their guns, so my only option under the proposed change would be to leave my gun in my car or at the office. Either way I would be defenseless walking across the parking lot to the courthouse. That is unacceptable.
I have prosecuted in Weber County for 6.5 years. I requalify under the LEOJ permit every year by shooting the same course that law enforcement does. There have been no issues with prosecutors from our office carrying. We check in with the bailiffs downstairs and sign in to a log to let them know who is carrying and still in the courthouse. Those of us who do choose to carry do so discreetly and securely.
The proposed change to strip discretion of local courts to make local decisions on formulating their local security plans consistent with existing laws that places prosecutors in danger is unacceptable. I am strongly opposed to the proposed change as it relates to section (8)(B)(ii), and will continue to advocate against it.
Could the committee define “court personnel” as used in Paragraphs 4(C); 4(D); 7(B) and 7(C). Does “court personnel” include 1) all employees of the Office of Courts Administration, 2) all employees of the Utah State Courts, 3) all appointed court officers, 3) all employees of other departments assigned to work at any court building?
This proposed rule strips “law enforcement official” in section (8)(B)(ii) as someone who can ever conceal carry in a courtroom – regardless of what the local security plan says, and regardless of their training and skill in handling a firearm.
First, this proposed rule overrides the discretion of local courts to determine their security plans and places my colleagues and me at risk of harm in the process. Under the old version of this rule, if a local court did not want judges, court commissioners, or law enforcement officials (all three being the LEOJ permit under 53-5-711) to carry in the courtroom – they could exercise their local discretion under their local security plan to ban those individuals from carrying in the courtroom. Under the proposed change, even if a local court wanted to, they could not permit law enforcement officials to conceal carry under their local security plan. What this board is doing through this proposed change is arbitrarily stripping discretion on how courts can formulate their local security plans, and that is unacceptable.
Second, this proposed change also strips the state law of its intended purpose in creating the LEOJ permit – for prosecutors and judges to be able to protect themselves from violent offenders. It is the same reason prosecutors and judges can remove their addresses from being publicly listed. I put away bad guys and I have received personal threats from some of the people I have put away over the years. Our local district court does not have lockers for people to check their guns, so my only option under the proposed change would be to leave my gun in my car or at the office. Either way I would be defenseless walking across the parking lot to the courthouse. That is unacceptable.
I have prosecuted in Weber County for 6.5 years. I requalify under the LEOJ permit every year by shooting the same course that law enforcement does. There have been no issues with prosecutors from our office carrying. We check in with the bailiffs downstairs and sign in to a log to let them know who is carrying and still in the courthouse. Those of us who do choose to carry do so discreetly and securely.
The proposed change to strip discretion of local courts to make local decisions on formulating their local security plans consistent with existing laws and in so doing places prosecutors in danger is unacceptable. I am strongly opposed to the proposed change as it relates to section (8)(B)(ii), and will continue to advocate against it.
As a law enforcement officer and one who routinely gets threats against my person due to my job as a police officer, I whole heartedly disagree with this action. We do not park in secure parking. This means that criminal elements can go shopping for firearms in parking lots around the courts. There are no lock up locations for our firearms and our department policies recommend carrying off duty, they also dictate how weapons must be stored. If you require I not travel with my firearms then feel free to enact a rule allowing law enforcement to attend court virtually. This allows us to maintain our safety, it allows for your ridiculous rule change, and allows my continued safety and compliance with my department policy. I do not see a legitimate reason for this change.