Presiding Judge Defends Search of Spectators

A Municipal Court judge’s order that spectators be detained, searched for weapons and checked for arrest warrants is “no different than what we are subjected to in order to board an aircraft,” the court’s presiding judge wrote Monday to critics of the practice.

In cautiously backing Judge Steven Hintz’s actions, Presiding Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. said in a letter to Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and Assistant Public Defender Duane Dammeyer that people entering courtrooms “have a right to do so without fear of violence.”

Despite Cooper’s letter, however, Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman said his office plans to ask a Superior Court judge to enjoin Hintz from repeating the procedure.

Bradbury and Dammeyer on Friday said Hintz’s mass search and warrant check the day before was illegal. Hintz had ordered bailiffs to exclude attorneys and police from Courtroom 12, lock the doors from the inside, then use hand-held metal detectors to search the about 20 spectators for weapons.

On Hintz’s orders, bailiffs also asked the spectators for identification, which court clerks then checked for outstanding arrest warrants. One woman was briefly detained but was released when computer records of a warrant in her name proved to be incorrect. No weapons were reported found.

Hintz said last week that he ordered the procedure to show the public that the court could enforce laws that allow it to order spectators searched for weapons. He cited signs warning court-goers of the laws, which have been posted permanently on engraved plaques outside the courthouse and which were duplicated on paper and posted last week on his courtroom door.

In his letter, Cooper wrote: “The procedure essentially was no different than what we are subjected to in order to board an aircraft, to enter Federal Courts, to enter many state courts, or to attend many other public gatherings, such as sporting events.”

However, the presiding judge did not address the warrant checks ordered by Hintz.

Cooper wrote that Hintz’s actions have not been adopted as policy by the Municipal Court, nor have the 12 judges discussed whether Hintz’s actions should be repeated in his or other courtrooms.

“It would be foolish for us to compromise our security measures by publicly proclaiming what they are or how they are to be effectuated,” he said of any changes in procedure that might be considered.

Hintz said last week that Cooper agreed to the search and warrant check. The presiding judge could not be reached for comment Monday. But his letter concluded: “A presiding judge has no authority whatsoever to control what another judge does in his courtroom.”

Bradbury said Monday that he considers the incident closed.

“We appreciate Judge Cooper’s response and assume that the matter will be resolved by the court without the need for further expressions of concern from this office,” Bradbury said. “It appears that the court is cognizant of our concerns, and I doubt if we’ll see a repeat of that type of conduct.”

Clayman said Monday that he was disappointed that Cooper’s letter did not address complaints about the warrant searches.

And he said that locking the courtroom violated the public’s right that court proceedings be conducted in the open.

“There was no reason to do the search and no reason to lock the room, and I don’t understand the relationship of the warrant check to the weapons search at all,” he said.