Judiciary pushes minimum courtroom security standards; sheriffs warn funding shortfalls
Loading...
Summary
Judiciary leaders asked lawmakers to adopt minimum courtroom security standards but said implementation depends on local funding; Baltimore City Sheriff told the committee his office is roughly $4 million short of what would be needed to staff courtrooms to the proposed standard.
The chief justice and other judiciary leaders asked the House Judiciary Committee to adopt minimum courthouse security standards recommended by a judicial task force established after the assassination of Judge Wilkinson.
"Do not conduct court sessions or hearings in the courtroom in absence of court security officers," Chief Justice Fader quoted from national guidance and told the committee the task force recommended one qualified courtroom security officer per courtroom and a second officer when an incarcerated person is present. "That is the correct standard," Fader said, while acknowledging that many Maryland circuit courts currently cannot meet it without additional funding.
Chief Judge John Morrissey described large-scale screening and confiscation statistics for district courts, saying district court security teams last year confiscated dozens of firearms and thousands of other weapons and tracked nearly 70 threat incidents. "We cannot leave safety to chance," Morrissey said.
Baltimore City Sheriff Sam Kogan testified he supported the standard but warned it would create a funding conflict with city officials unless the state provides resources. "It's $4,000,000 underfunded to do what I would need to do to run the court security the way it is," Kogan said, urging either a grant program or a funding mandate.
Local-government representatives, including the Maryland Association of Counties, asked for jurisdiction-level vacancy and cost data before endorsing any standard. Judiciary witnesses said the budget request includes $5.6 million in grant funding to help local jurisdictions begin closing gaps, while acknowledging many counties would require more resources to meet the aspiration.
The committee heard a mix of support for the safety goals and concern about unfunded implementation; members asked staff to consider grant design and whether the measure should remain aspirational, require "best efforts" language, or include a permanent funding mechanism for local sheriffs' offices.
Next steps: lawmakers requested vacancy and cost breakdowns and discussed amendment language to clarify whether the requirement is a mandate or a reporting/"best efforts" target.
