Bartholomew County judges have decided to delay implementation of a proposed rule banning cell phones in the county courthouse as they seek additional input from the public and from the Indiana Supreme Court.
A proposed rule change would ban all cell phones and other types of audio and video recording equipment from the courthouse, with exceptions to court staff, clerk’s staff, court services, law enforcement, Department of Child Services, and attorneys.
Originally scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, Bartholomew Superior Court 1 Judge Jim Worton said that is now being put aside to allow for more feedback from the public and those who frequent the courthouse, and more research into how other courthouses are handling security issues related to cell phones.
The proposed rule change has been under consideration since October, and the judges had thought it had been placed on the Bartholomew County website for the public to consider. However, the link was not operational when a Republic reporter attempted to access it, with the file saying there was a “404 error.”
Judge Kelly Benjamin said the judges had not been aware that the proposal was not able to be viewed on the county website.
The Republic obtained an Indiana Public Access Counselor advisory opinion about a similar proposal made in Cass County, with Public Access Counselor Luke Britt ruling in an advisory opinion that a cell phone ban in a public building violated Indiana’s public meetings statute.
In Cass County, and in Bartholomew County, public meetings are held in the buildings, and Britt ruled that Indiana’s Open Door Law provides that all meetings of public agencies, unless an exemption applies, must be open at all times for the purpose of permitting members of the public to observe and record them.
There are public meetings conducted in the Bartholomew County Courthouse, including in the clerk’s office and in other areas of the building which are routinely covered by the media and attended by the public.
“While the Open Door Law does not specifically state than an individual may use a cell phone to record a meeting, denying a citizen the ability to record a public meeting using their cell phone violates the public policy intentions of the Open Door Law,” Britt wrote. Cass County withdrew its cell phone ban after Britt’s ruling.
Worton said at no time, and in no way, would the judges ever deny public access at the courthouse.
Bartholomew County’s proposed rule does allow the local courts to “reserve the right to grant exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis,” but the rule does not say who decides if an exception will be granted or even how an individual would apply for an exception.
The Bartholomew County commissioners declined to vote on the judge’s request. Bartholomew County Attorney Grant Tucker said the judges did consult with the commissioners and the clerk’s office about cell phones and other recording devices, along with the courthouse security staff.
“The offshoot of that discussion was that if the judges and the clerk felt that action to prohibit cell phones and other recording devices in their courtrooms and offices was warranted, the commissioners would not oppose the passage of a local court rule to do so,” Tucker said.
The county commissioners, who are in charge of the courthouse and all county buildings, did not formally vote on the phone ban, said Commissioner Rick Flohr.
“We didn’t disapprove it,” Flohr said. “I believe we said we were leaving the matter up to the judges.”
Comments on social media about the proposal have been mixed, with some individuals saying while state law prohibits recording in Indiana courtrooms, it does not prohibit cell phones in public buildings, including hallways and public areas of structures. Other commenters said they agreed with the ban, saying cell phones were disruptive.
Two of the four candidates who are seeking the Republican nomination for Bartholomew Superior Court 2 judge did provide reaction to the proposed rule. Candidates Scott Andrews and Joe Meek did not respond to requests for comment.
Local attorney Dominic Glover said it has been his understanding that the recording, videotaping or photographs during any kinds of court hearing is prohibited.
“Cell phones in the courtrooms during court proceedings are very disruptive, and it’s not just litigants. I’ve heard the cell phones of both attorneys and judges go off during hearings,” he said.
However, he said that prohibiting cell phones and recording devices throughout the courthouse may be “overstepping.”
“I haven’t researched it the way a lawyer or a judge might do. I don’t know if a judge has the authority to determine whether or not a reporter or a private individual can bring a phone into the clerk’s office, voter registration office, the prosecutor’s office, or other offices in the courthouse,” Glover said. “Judges have full control of what may be taken into their courtrooms, but it seems to me the Bartholomew County commissioners are the only governing body who can determine what devices may be taken into other offices. That’s a subtle and important distinction.”
Glover said there are meetings in the jail and Community Corrections facility all the time that are recorded and transcribed.
“It seems the judges may have taken a step too far. I think personnel in the clerk’s officer, voter registration and prosecutors may have different positions on the matter,” Glover said. “I have always assumed that the commissioners have control of all rooms in the courthouse. I think judges can regulate how proceedings in their courtroom are handled, but the entirety of a building? That’s a different question. Although I don’t know if they deal with the First Amendment, there are legitimate questions raised by this action.”
Jon Rohde, an attorney who is also seeking the Republican nomination for Superior Court 2 judge, said there is a process for all local rules to be approved.
“It’s state law that no recordings or photography be done in the courtroom when court is in session. I agree we need to make sure there is order without disruptions within the courthouse,” Rohde said. “In terms of banning these devices throughout the entire courthouse, all I can say is that there is a process that must be followed for accepting local rules. Since I haven’t been part of that process, I don’t have an understanding of the local basis for this rule, nor do I know what information the judges have to make that rule. I haven’t decided pros or cons in this matter, but I will say that I believe our local judges have no intent of not allowing access to the public.”
Rohde said he was sure the judges are following the law and not attempting to suppress any public information. “The public has a right to know what is going on in the legal system. But I really can’t speculate on why the judges extended this outside the courtroom. I would need more information to provide an educated opinion,” Rohde said.
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”Proposed cell phone rule” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
Cell phones and any other type of audio or video recording equipment or device, are not permitted in the Bartholomew County Courthouse except in certain circumstances.
All Court staff, Bartholomew County Prosecutor’s staff, Bartholomew County Clerk’s staff, Bartholomew County Court Services staff, law enforcement officers, Department of Child Services staff, and attorneys admitted to the Indiana bar may bring cell phones into the Bartholomew County Courthouse. All the Bartholomew County Courts reserve the right to grant exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis.
Rule 2.17 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits the broadcasting, televising, recording or taking of photographs in all courtrooms and areas near the courtrooms. Any distribution of audio or video recordings of court proceedings or an area near a courtroom, including posting the audio or video recordings on any social media platform, shall not occur without the Court’s permission and any appropriate Orders about those recordings. Any distribution of photographs taken in a Bartholomew County Courtroom or area near a courtroom, including posting the photograph to any social media platform, shall not occur without the Court’s permisson and any appropriate Orders about the photograph.
Unauthorized distribution of such audio and video recordings or photographs may be punishable through a contempt of court proceeding. Any person who aids, induces or causes the unauthorized recording of Court proceedings or any person who possesses or distributes any unauthorized recording or photograph of court proceedings may also be subject to contempt of court proceedings.
— Source: Bartholomew County
[sc:pullout-text-end][sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”How to comment” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
Anyone wishing to comment on the cell phone proposal should go to the Bartholomew County website at bartholomew.in.gov and click on "Contact Us" where you may direct comments to the judges.
[sc:pullout-text-end]
