Judge Shaw briefs county committee on courthouse security, cites screening and escorts

Presiding Judge Shaw of the King County Superior Court briefed the Government Accountability and Oversight Committee on courthouse security at the committee's Jan. 14, 2025 meeting, reporting screening and escort statistics and describing the types of disturbances staff and the public have experienced.

Shaw told the committee, “we've had about 360,000 people entering the courthouse through the magnometers...about 1,400 a day” at the Third Avenue courthouse and about “280,000 people entered through the magnometers” at the MRJC building, adding the court had screened hundreds of thousands of articles and recorded dozens of on- and off-site disturbances. He said the Sheriff’s Office has provided about 1,400 protective escorts and that court staff logged 49 incident reports involving threats to court staff or operations.

The figures Shaw provided were the meeting's central data points: roughly 360,000 entries and 450,000 articles screened at the Third Avenue courthouse (an average of about 1,400 people per day), roughly 280,000 entries and 280,000 articles screened at the MRJC building (about 1,100 people per day), approximately 139 disturbances across courthouse properties (about 125 near the Seattle courthouse and 14 near the Kent courthouse), a small number of bomb threats, several acts of vandalism such as broken windows, roughly 1,400 protective escorts by the Sheriff’s Office and about 400 courtroom calls for law enforcement.

Why it matters: courthouse safety affects employees, jurors, litigants and public access to the judicial branch. Judge Shaw emphasized that security is intended to allow people “to come to court without fearing for their safety,” and committee members said the numbers will help guide budget and deployment decisions.

Committee members pressed on trends, reporting gaps and jurisdictional issues. Council member Balducci said the numbers “tell a tale, but only so far,” and urged staff to disaggregate incidents that occur immediately outside the courthouse — particularly at nearby light-rail and bus stops — because those events are often handled by other jurisdictions and agencies and may not appear in the court's statistics. Shaw confirmed the presented numbers come primarily from the Sheriff’s Office and facilities staff and said incidents reported at transit stops a block or two away are likely undercounted in the courthouse data set.

Shaw and committee members described the kinds of incidents recorded under “disturbances”: yelling, cursing, disruptive behavior, occasional physical altercations, and situations involving people in crisis related to mental-health or substance-use conditions. Shaw said some criminal violations, including assaults on staff or visitors, are captured as criminal reports but do not always proceed to prosecution for a variety of reasons.

Balducci and the chair emphasized the need to connect reported trends to interventions funded by the council — in particular, security funded for the Third Avenue block — and requested more detailed incident mapping and source attribution so the council can judge whether current patrols and security staff are producing measurable safety improvements. Shaw said those are appropriate follow-ups and that the court will continue coordinating with the Sheriff’s Office, Metro, Seattle Police Department and facilities management to clarify jurisdictional responsibilities.

No formal committee action was taken; the briefing was for information and discussion. Chair Von Reichbauer and Council member Balducci both thanked Shaw for the presentation and asked staff for additional, disaggregated data to inform future budgeting and operational decisions.

The committee noted the practical effect of the data on staff and jurors: members said court employees have reported being physically assaulted while traveling to transit and expressed support for continued funding and interagency coordination to maintain courthouse access and safety.