Dimmit County court tables metal‑detector policy after debate over authority, enforcement

The Dimmit County Commissioners Court on Monday discussed a proposed metal‑detector and courthouse screening policy and voted to table the proposal pending review by the county attorney.

The policy, drafted with outside counsel, would standardize screening at county courthouses and other county facilities and set rules for handling people who bring weapons or otherwise violate the policy. County officials said the measure is a response to a recent incident in which "a former elected official came into this courthouse with a gun in his holster" and refused to remove it — an episode the county judge cited as central to the change in procedure.

County Judge (speaker) told the court, "We have to implement this policy because we did have a situation in which a former elected official came into this courthouse with a gun in his holster ... and refused to take it off." The judge and other commissioners said the goal is to protect staff, elected officials and visitors and to create consistent rules so security staff do not allow exceptions.

Members of the court and the sheriff's office raised operational questions during the discussion. The sheriff's office representative noted security personnel have radios and a red panic button that alerts law enforcement, and that some courthouse security staff are licensed peace officers who can arrest if necessary. But county officials said the draft policy did not clearly define the security officers' enforcement duties or the scope of their authority to issue citations or criminal trespass warnings.

County Attorney Daniel Gonzales and other elected officials also flagged legal and procedural issues. Gonzales noted that, under Texas law and local practice, certain licensed open‑carry holders may be exempt from some restrictions if the county judge authorizes them. That point was discussed in the context of a local code enforcer who, officials said, carries a handgun while assisting courthouse security.

Concerns raised by several commissioners included: - Whether the policy clearly defines when and how security may detain or arrest someone, and whether they have forms and citation books to issue criminal trespass warnings. - Whether security personnel have reliable panic buttons and radio communications to summon deputies, and how those systems are integrated. - Whether outside counsel who drafted the policy reviewed local operational realities and whether the county attorney should perform an in‑house legal review and suggest revisions.

Commissioner (unnamed) asked that the county attorney review the document for legal advice and local applicability. The court voted to table the item and direct the county attorney to review the policy and return recommendations: motion to table and refer to the county attorney was made and seconded, and the motion carried.

The court also discussed a plan to continue refining the policy after the county attorney's review. The judge said the court could still amend the policy later based on practical experience and directed staff to work with legal counsel to strengthen operational language.

The county did not adopt the screening policy at the meeting. No changes to screening or enforcement became effective that day; the court expressly tabled the proposal so the county attorney could provide a written legal review and suggested edits.

The discussion occurred during agenda item 3.13 and the motion to table was recorded on the minutes of the September meeting. Commissioners said they expect the county attorney's review to be returned to a future meeting for further action or adoption.