WILMINGTON — The Ohio attorney general has weighed in on a local issue about how much power judges have for deciding security measures in the county courthouse.
A written formal opinion signed by Ohio Governor-elect and current Attorney General Mike DeWine advises that the authority of a court “to secure and safeguard” its exercise of judicial purposes “may extend to portions of a courthouse that are not exclusively occupied or used by the court, if the court shows that those areas are reasonably necessary to the court’s efficient operation.”
As reported in July, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney Richard W. “Rick” Moyer, who serves as legal counsel for the county, told the county commissioners that, other than inside the courtrooms, it is the commissioners who direct the county sheriff to carry out what they want done for courthouse security.
During that same open session of commissioners, Clinton County Common Pleas Judge John W. “Tim” Rudduck disagreed with Moyer’s position as it relates to the extent of judges’ power in the making of security policy round a courthouse.
“So to say that you guys [commissioners] are completely in charge of the courthouse security, I completely disagree with that. If there is a precedent that in a mixed-use building like this that the judges’ authority with regards to security in the courthouse stops at the door of the courtroom [alluding to the county prosecutor’s view], I’d like to see it. I don’t believe it,” said Rudduck last summer.
Later, as a part of efforts to resolve the issue, Moyer offered to seek the opinion of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. His opinion request asked about the authority of a county sheriff, court of common pleas, and board of county commissioners to provide security measures in a county courthouse that houses not only courts but other county general government offices, too.
On Friday, Clinton County Commissioners President Patrick Haley said, in the wake of the state attorney general’s 13-page opinion, the matter needs to be discussed further by county commissioners, the sheriff, and the judges.
Haley noted the attorney general quoted the Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C) to the effect that a county sheriff, subject to the direction of county commissioners, has authority when it comes to courthouse security. However, the attorney general’s opinion adds “the judges also have an interest for security, especially for their courts [and their functions],” said Haley.
So, the attorney general’s opinion by itself does not totally resolve the local question, Haley said.
Accordingly, that makes for an opportunity for the commissioners, sheriff and judges “to sit down to communicate, cooperate, and craft a workable and effective security process for the courthouse,” said Haley.
The commissioner said he might add there has not been any actual security emergency at the courthouse, but rather “just a need to refine it [security policy] somewhat.”
Indeed, the discussion in July was prompted by a proposed courthouse security measure on which the common pleas and juvenile court judges had a question or concern. This News Journal report, in order to land on the side of caution, will not disclose specific details on the security issue in question — details that conceivably could compromise the safety of court personnel.
The attorney general’s opinion backs its viewpoint by citing the Ohio Court Security Standards that are included in the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, in addition of course to the state’s chief law officer citing Ohio law.
The Ohio Court Security Standards’ preamble concludes: “The Ohio Court Security Standards attempt to balance the diverse needs of each community. However, each locale is encouraged to promulgate policies and procedures to meet its specific needs. Special consideration should be given to defining the roles and responsibilities of the court and law enforcement officials within each local jurisdiction.”
The Ohio Court Security Standards were first adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1994. They have since been revised to reflect changes in the society affecting them, according to the preamble’s opening paragraph.
Reach Gary Huffenberger at 937-556-5768.
