IMAGINE THIS: A courthouse security control room is staffed by two officers, one of whom is also an emergency medical technician (EMT). One morning, an altercation occurs in another part of the courthouse, and a prisoner is injured. Sheriff's deputies assigned to guard these prisoners summon the EMT, who leaves the control room.
Shortly thereafter, a supervisor asks the second officer to leave the control room to get her breakfast, not an unusual request; no one realizes that the control room is now without staff.
Another deputy, transporting a handcuffed defendant to court, arrives at the control room, finds it empty, and uses a key to enter the holding cell area. She also uses a key to unlock a gun box, where she deposits her gun.
The observant prisoner attacks his guard, takes the keys along with the deputy's gun and radio, changes into street clothes, and enters the courtroom for his trial. He holds more than a dozen people hostage. He opens fire, killing a judge and a court reporter, while alarms that had been triggered in the judge's chambers are ignored due to frequent false alarms.
After fleeing the courthouse, the prisoner continues to wreak havoc, fatally shooting another sheriff's deputy and a federal agent before being apprehended in a manhunt that spans five states.
As improbable as this scenario sounds, it's not fiction. It's what the investigating commission pieced together as the likely sequence of events that occurred when Brian Nichols went on his alleged rampage at Atlanta's Fulton County Courthouse on March 11, 2005.
The incident is but one of a number of high-profile shootings on courthouse property that have made headlines in recent years. Each time, the media shine a spotlight on the state of courthouse security nationwide. The real question is whether courthouses are getting the message--that security has to shine even when not in the media spotlight.
"Atlanta was an impetus for everyone to look at their court systems," says Gregory Sanders, CPP, headquarters security advisor for the United Nations Development Programme and a member of the ASIS International Crime and Loss Prevention Council. Sanders, who previously managed security for the New Jersey supreme and appellate courts, notes that communities with adequate financial resources have revamped programs, "but it definitely takes newsworthy events to cause significant change."
The potential for violence is high in both federal and state courts. "It's an emotionally charged environment," says Drew Levine, president, security services division, Wackenhut Corporation. "Rarely are people there for good news."
Given that the threat is not likely to abate, what is being done?
Federal Court Security
At the federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is responsible for judicial and court security in 94 federal judicial districts and the District of Columbia Superior Court. The USMS resources have to serve about 2,000 judges plus other court officials at more than 400 court facilities throughout the nation.
More than 3,000 deputy marshals direct activities at the district offices. They carry out USMS standards that include guidance on court security technology and staffing.
Technology. The Judicial Security Systems (JSS) division at the Marshals Service headquarters is responsible for the complex perimeter security, access control, CCTV, and alarms used to protect court personnel and facilities. All entrances are equipped with weapons-screening stations using walk-through and handheld detectors and other equipment designed to detect illegal substances.
After 9-11, physical security surveys were conducted by JSS at all federal courthouse buildings. Upgrades were added where needed based on the existing technology at the site. New equipment included vehicles barriers, exterior cameras, and emergency operations equipment. …