Liability in Court Death Is a Security Issue

0

Liability in Court Death Is a Security Issue

By AMANDA BRONSTAD

Staff Reporter

Cecil Mills’ phone rang with another report of an arrest in Los Angeles Superior Court. This time, someone had tried to smuggle a 14-inch World War I fighting knife into the Los Angeles County Courthouse. The arrest was the fourth that week.

Despite massive spending on metal detectors and added security in the past few years, Mills, director of security for L.A. Superior Court, says the court system still lacks top-notch security, due largely to budget constraints.

The situation may get worse before it gets better.

The California Supreme Court is set to rule shortly in a case challenging limits to the county’s liability when crimes are committed in its buildings. A ruling against the county could send it and L.A. Superior Court administrators scrambling for additional funds at a time when security concerns have grown and the state budget to pay for them has diminished.

The case the Supreme Court is set to decide involves the death of Eileen Zelig, who was shot to death by her ex-husband in the Los Angeles County Courthouse on her way to a child support hearing in 1996. The Zelig children filed a wrongful death suit against the county, claiming it had a responsibility to protect their mother while on its grounds. The case was thrown out in 1997, but that ruling was overturned in 1999, reopening the possibility of liability on the part of the county.

The county appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to make a ruling within a few weeks on whether to uphold the appellate decision. Should the court find in favor of the Zelig children, the result could be greatly increase security costs to the county.

Budget shortfalls

L.A. Superior Court is expected to spend $102.9 million on security during the 2002 fiscal year ending June 30, up 23.3 percent from fiscal 1999, according to William Mitchell, deputy executive officer of the L.A. Superior Court.

Security is funded by the state, the result of a 1997 law shifting the costs of security away from the courts. L.A. Superior Court uses its state funds to retain the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department for security. The county, which handled security at the time of the Zelig shooting, retains responsibility for maintenance at the buildings and so remains a party to the litigation.

Superior Court has significantly enhanced courthouse security since the shooting, especially after installing metal detectors downtown in 1999, though an adverse ruling would affect all of the 58 buildings in the L.A. Superior Court system.

Last year, a state task force found that more than 30 courthouses in Southern California needed additional security.

That’s no surprise to Mills, who has seen arrests and incidents at screening areas rise steadily over the past few years. Of the 22 million people who walked through the doors of an L.A. Superior Courthouse between March 2001 and February 2002, 84,710 had household or utensil knives, 82,188 had pocket or hunting knives, 9,300 carried mace and 6,874 had handcuff keys.

More than 20 people were arrested for bringing firearms into L.A. Superior Court’s downtown building during the same period, as well, he said.

But the state has not been very responsive to increased security needs. Of the additional $60.4 million requested in security-related costs, L.A. Superior Court has received just $2.8 million, Mitchell said.

Ideally, Mills would like to replace the 51 private security guards needed in the downtown Superior Court building with trained deputy sheriffs. But that would cost an additional $50,000 per person per year.

He also would like to have additional cameras and more panic alarms in the hallways and courtrooms. And Mills would like to replace several machines like X-ray and metal detectors.

Mills said since the terrorist attacks, he has been meeting with commanders at the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department once a week and visiting courtrooms to re-assess security measures. Those efforts, however, have not yet resulted in new policies.

Mills also issued a survey, now nearing completion, to all the L.A. Superior Court managers to describe what security equipment they have in place, where they’re located and whether they work, as well as staffing needs of the courts. The lengthy questionnaire mimics a standard survey issued every several years but was sent out earlier than normal because of Sept. 11, he said.

“We look at ways in which we can do what we do smarter and make better deployment of our assets,” Mills said. “But these are lean times for government. It’s not realistic for me to sit here and expect this big pot of gold we’ll be able to spend on security measures we dream up. We’ll have to make do.”

No posts to display