Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Justice of the peace judges, constables and fire marshal to meet after concerns about courthouse security and bailiff duties
Summary
Justice of the peace judges raised building‑wide security concerns and requested a closed‑door meeting with constables, the fire marshal and county staff; commissioners directed a follow‑up meeting and process for handling security disputes and staffing questions.
Justice of the peace judges and constables told the Continuous Improvement Steering Committee Feb. 11 they want a dedicated, confidential meeting to work through courthouse security concerns, staffing shortages and the statutory division of responsibilities between constables and newly expanded marshal service screening.
Several JPs said the issue is broader than courtroom bailiffing and involves building‑wide protection and the confidentiality of operational details. “My concern is overall security for the building, not just my courtroom and not just when I'm in the courtroom,” Justice Whitfield said during public comment.
The county fire marshal reported a county‑wide review of government centers and has been installing screening operations (magnetometers and screeners) in some facilities; the fire marshal said the county aims to have screening equipment in the justice of the peace (JP) locations by June. The marshal's office has also performed security assessments and initiated screening pilot operations at other government centers.
Constables told the committee they are statutorily required to serve process and act as bailiffs for their precincts. Several constables said staffing shortages limit their ability to provide consistent dedicated bailiffs at every court and requested that staffing studies underway by county human resources be taken into account. Precinct officers described broad patrol and process workloads that leave limited spare capacity to add duties without additional hires.
Committee members and elected officials agreed the dispute has elements that should not be aired in open session. The committee directed staff to convene a meeting of the relevant stakeholders'the justice of the peace judges, constables, the fire marshal, county administrative staff and representatives from the county's administrative offices'to review statutory roles, staffing levels, and operational needs and to report back to the court in closed session if there are sensitive security details.
The committee recorded three near‑term steps on the record: (1) marshal service to continue phased security screening and equipment deployment; (2) a stakeholder meeting (JP judges, constables, fire marshal, county administration and legal) to be scheduled to address unresolved operational and legal questions; and (3) the county's staffing assessment (under way) to inform any requests for additional constable staffing or for the marshal service to assume expanded operational tasks.
Court members said a policy and a clear escalation process are needed so an individual JP or constable knows where to raise and resolve security and staffing disputes. Committee staff said the marshal's office will lead the security‑assessment work and coordinate the stakeholder meeting, and the county's staffing study will provide data on whether additional sworn positions are required.
