Plan Would Beef Up Security at County Courthouse

In an effort to prevent violent crime from spilling over into courtrooms, law enforcement officials are working on a plan that would add metal detectors and X-ray machines to the first floor of the Ventura County Hall of Justice.

Although still in the early stages, the proposed $1.3-million screening program would effectively stop anyone from carrying concealed weapons into the county’s main courthouse in Ventura.

“It is the kind of plan that has been in the back of people’s minds for a couple of years,” said Ventura County Sheriff’s Capt. Bruce Hansen, one of the officials who oversees security at the courthouse.

But the plan has gained a new sense of urgency in recent months as a tide of more serious felony cases has rolled into the Ventura County Superior and Municipal courts, according to law enforcement and court officials.

Aside from two metal detectors on the fourth floor of the courthouse, where some of the most emotionally explosive cases are heard in family court, sheriff’s personnel have no way of knowing who may be carrying weapons into the building, authorities said.

“I think everyone realizes the situation is one that is potentially dangerous and needs to be addressed,” Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Kevin J. McGee said. “We are supportive of the idea.”

Prosecutors and judges say the county has been lucky so far. The increase in violent crimes reflected in their caseloads has yet to spill over into the courthouse corridors or courtrooms.

But rather than wait for a preventable tragedy to occur, authorities are eager to head off potential violence by beefing up security now.

“The building is virtually wide open,” Hansen said of the Ventura courthouse. “This is a plan, if it were to gain funding, to make the facility safer.”

But finding the money is the problem, Hansen said. To install two airport-style metal detectors and X-ray devices at the north and south courthouse entrances, hire personnel to operate the machines, and tighten access elsewhere in the building would initially cost $1,393,000.

“That’s a onetime expense,” said Hansen, adding that it would take an additional $480,000 annually to operate and staff the weapons-screening devices in the years to follow.

Recognizing the funding demands already on the county, Hansen said he was not sure when--or if--the department would go to the Board of Supervisors to ask for the money.

“We’re still in the thinking stage,” he said.

Court officials say they realize that improved security is going to be expensive. But for the county not to take some action, they said, would be a mistake.

“I think they would be insane not to look at it,” said Superior Court Judge Melinda A. Johnson, who presides over one of two juvenile courts on the building’s third floor.

“We want it,” added Superior Court Judge Steven Z. Perren. “The range of human emotions that plays itself out in the courthouse tells us that someone at some point is going to do something that is preventable.”

But many on the public defender’s staff say the plan is costly and unnecessary. They argue that installing the screening devices will be an unnecessary hassle for courthouse employees and the public.

“Frankly, our position is that this type of security is not necessary at this courthouse,” said Assistant Public Defender Jean L. Farley.

Already, Farley said, attorneys and their clients must undergo searches on the fourth floor that are intrusive and sometimes delay their ability to get to court on time.

It would be one thing if there was a demonstrated security risk, Farley said. But at this point, she questioned whether the situation was so grave that it warrants the measures being proposed.

“To me it is very disconcerting,” she said.

But prosecutors and judges say they would rather not wait for someone to be injured before taking action.

Although no agency tracks courthouse shootings on a statewide or national basis, there have been enough incidents in other jurisdictions to prompt court and government officials elsewhere in the state to adopt tighter security measures.

The issue has become a top priority in Los Angeles County in the aftermath of a deadly shooting at the downtown civil courthouse 18 months ago.

Although the criminal courts building there is equipped with weapon-detecting devices, none were in place when a Woodland Hills physician carried a loaded .38-caliber revolver into the civil courthouse on Sept. 1, 1995, and fatally shot his ex-wife during a hearing on their divorce case.

Last week, Harry Zelig was convicted of first-degree murder. But the county has yet to install the metal detectors that may have prevented the shooting.

Although officials have purchased metal detectors and X-ray machines for the civil courthouse, officials say Los Angeles County’s budget crisis has left them with no funding to install the equipment or train staff members to use it.

The shooting prompted officials elsewhere in Southern California to install or upgrade security devices at courthouses in Pomona, Compton, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Monica and Van Nuys.

“Unfortunately, what often drives that kind of decision is when something awful happens,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Randall Thomas, who oversees the juvenile unit in Ventura County, where security issues are of particular concern because of the increasing number of gang-related cases involving teenagers.

Currently, private security guards stand in front of the juvenile courtrooms and security cameras keep watch from the ceiling. But court officials say the potential for violence remains.

“From our view,” prosecutor McGee said, “the third floor where the two juvenile courts are located are the potential trouble spots.”

Perren, who has a third-floor courtroom where criminal cases are heard, says the need for better security is a valid issue.

“Events will happen,” he said. “We should not have to await a catastrophe.”