Judge outlines proposed court security order to clarify courthouse access and enforcement

Weston County commissioners on Sept. 2 heard from a district court judge about a proposed court security order meant to clarify where judicial operations are subject to special security rules and what law enforcement may enforce.

Judge Kavli told commissioners the order is not intended to increase the sheriff’s or county’s obligations but to ‘‘clarify what do we believe that we can kinda order’’ so law enforcement has a defined legal basis to act in courthouse areas tied to judicial functions. He said the courts had reviewed legislation, existing rules and court-security standards and were seeking consistent language county-by-county.

The proposed order would explicitly cover judicial operations on the third floor and certain adjacent spaces the judge described as choke points ‘‘where the stairs and the elevator kinda converge.’’ Judge Kavli said the order aims to give deputies and court security ‘‘the authority’’ to enforce rules — including restrictions on weapons in areas used for court business — and to provide legal mechanisms such as contempt where appropriate.

Commissioners and attendees pressed for more-precise boundaries. Commissioner Marty Urban called the proposal ‘‘an uncomfortable order’’ and asked what enforcement ‘‘teeth’’ it would provide. Urban also raised concern about searches and whether the order could require additional staffing, saying his ‘‘biggest concern would be, if we have to hire another individual to watch that other floor.’’

Under Sheriff Jenkins and other law-enforcement representatives were present for the discussion. Commissioners asked about whether basement areas and office hallways would be included; Judge Kavli said the intent was not to sweep in every public area and that language could be narrowed. Commissioners suggested a limited, physical fix — installing a secure door across a short hallway near the clerk’s office — to encapsulate the back office area without imposing broad searches in public corridors.

Officials also flagged building constraints. Commissioners noted the courthouse’s historic status, potential fire-marshall issues with adding controlled doors, and the fact that court security coverage in the county is part-time and paid from overtime. Commissioner Wagner asked whether the county could be held liable if an incident occurred and an order was not enforced; Judge Kavli recommended consulting the county attorney, saying, "I would talk to your county and cross feeding attorney about that." (transcript wording)

Judge Kavli said the National Center for State Courts had done an assessment recommending additional personnel and that the judiciary had limited discretionary funding. He repeatedly emphasized the order was intended ‘‘to give the folks the authority that they need’’ rather than to create new day-to-day obligations for the sheriff’s office.

What happens next: Commissioners asked staff and the judiciary to tighten the order’s language, to work with the sheriff and the county attorney on liability and enforcement questions, and to check code/fire-marshal issues before any physical modifications are made. The judge invited feedback on specific wording to better limit the order to judicial operations.

Ending: The discussion closed with agreement to refine the draft order and to explore a targeted physical change (a secured door in the short hallway by the clerk’s office) as a potential, lower-cost way to protect clerk and court operations while minimizing impact on public access to nonjudicial courthouse services.