Dear Cindy at The Dagger,
This past February, the Aegis printed a letter from a woman juror who got trapped in the juror parking lot elevator and spent a considerable amount of time before being rescued. She was unable to summon help because of the prohibition on carrying cell phones into the Harford County courthouse. I’ve looked into this and found that cell phones and other electronic devices are allowed into MD courthouses, with certain guidelines. I’ve asked various elected officials and have been told that it’s Chief Judge William Carr’s personal edict that prevents Harford County citizens from carrying their phones and electronic devices into the courthouse. A deputy at the courthouse told me he turns away as many as fifty people a day because they are carrying their cell phones. MD Rule 16-110 in effect as of January 2011, expressly permits cell phones and other electronic devices in courthouses, with certain guidelines. This means as many as 20,000 Harford County citizens have been turned away unnecessarily from the courthouse.
I’ve written to Judge Carr on February 27 and when I received no response, also wrote to MD Chief Judge Robert Bell. I have not received a response from him either.
I’ve attached the rule, and my letters to Judges Carr and Bell and also a link below to an article in the Gazette about Frederick County’s implementation of the rule.
Thanks,
Patrick Lovett
February 27, 2013
The Honorable William O. Carr
County Administrative Judge & Chief Judge
Harford County Circuit Court
20 West Courtland Street
Bel Air, MD 21014Dear Judge Carr,
A few weeks ago there was a letter to the Aegis from a woman juror who became trapped between floors in the juror parking lot elevator. According to her letter, the phone in the elevator connected her to an erroneous location that was not in any way relevant to her plight. The woman pushed the emergency alarm for an hour to no avail. The lady had no cell phone to call for help because of the local court prohibition on carrying a cell phone into the courthouse.
I’ve looked into this policy. Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Carroll, Cecil and Frederick County allow cell phones in the courthouse. The current Harford County policy creates a hardship for our citizens. It is unfair that lawyers are free to carry their cell phones while other citizens are prohibited from doing the same. A courthouse deputy told me that he turns away as many as 20 people per hour on some days. This includes elderly folks who have to walk back to their cars to leave their phones. I’ve attached the new rule and would like to discuss the issue with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,Patrick Lovett
March 13, 2013
The Honorable Robert M. Bell
Chief Judge, Court of Appeals
Robert C. Murphy Court of Appeals Building
361 Rowe Blvd.
Annapolis, MD 21401Dear Judge Bell,
I mailed the attached letter with a copy of MD Rule 16-110 regarding cell phones to Judge Carr, Chief Judge Harford County Circuit Court on February 27, 2013. I have not received a reply. I believe the rule, effective 1/1/2011, was the court system’s reasoned response to 21st century communications. Judge Carr is either unaware of the rule or has decided not to implement it. I believe this sets a terrible example for our court system to set rules and have its own judges ignore them. I am open to a discussion if I’m wrong or I’m interpreting the rule incorrectly.
Sincerely,Patrick Lovett
Who cares? Disconnect for a few minutes. Take up a cause that would be good for society….like stronger penalties for parole violations.
Who cares? Those of us who care about fairness care, that’s who.
You really approve of one judge making up his own rules, which contradict the rules for all courts which are established by the state? You don’t see the irony in a judge, of all people, doing that???
Isnt there a phone IN the elevator that calls emergency when picked up?
I didn’t read the article I see now that she attempted to call for assistance to no avail. The problem is if you allow people to bring them they won’t stay off them while in court. Easier to just have a no cellphone policy. Force the elevator company to fix the phone
Why not allow prospective jurors to keep their phones until voir dire is complete, and at that time have the bailiff secure their phones until they are dismissed for the day? Sitting in the jury room for 8 hours without a phone, tablet or ebook stinks, and some days they do not even call jurors due to pleas being negotiated for all cases.
I can just see someone asking the Judge to hold on for a second while they finish their personal call!
Thats exactly what would happen too
I’ve been on courtrooms in two other counties recently where that didn’t happen. The bailiff made an announcement, before the judge entered the court, that phones must be turned off — not merely silenced — and that if a phone rang during court the bailiff would take it away for the duration of the proceedings. I never heard any phone sounds while I was there.
Did any of you read law above before commenting?
It is about fairness. I have been called as a witness on court cases having to wait a good part of the day for the case to be called , and then for my turn to my short testimony. During this time, without a cell phone I can not run my business, make sure my family is OK, or contact clients. Attorneys on the other hand have complete access to cell phones, laptops, etc.
The ban on all devices for most of the public is unfair & arbitrary.
The ban is being used as an lazy administrative device to control all the public rather then having to deal with some “offender” who need to learn when to use and when not to use their electronic devices.
Are you serious Mr. Pat Lovett.
People, (family and or friends) of defendants in court could take pix of witnesses, police officers, and others involved in a case. Where do you think this would led to? Do we need to explain this to you step by step?
You and your cell phone are NOT a constitutional right, such as the 2nd amendment. The right to carry a cell phone, really???
The phone in the elevator will get help to the stranded person.
The person didn’t ask for the right kind of help over the phone.
This lack of the right information led to the timely rescue.
Pat Lovett, you are a disconnected with the real world.
No Nonsense
No Nonsense, do you really not understand the issue here??? Maryland court rules specifically allow the carrying of cell phones; the prohibition on carrying them in Harford County is the result of one judge deciding that he is above the rules that judges in 22 other jurisdictions follow, and that he gets to make up and enforce his own rules.
If you think people can’t be trusted with their cell phones in court, then petition the State to change the rule. But don’t sanction and rationalize one rogue judge in one county making up his own rules just because you happen to agree with him. (And you don’t see the irony in that? Really???)
The rule allows each individual judge to make the decision, it does not say they must be allowed. There have been specific incidents of a serious nature that have impacted court proceedings, and the judge has decided a temporary inconvenience out ways the potential problems. Phones are no longer just phones, they record testimony, they photograph and videotape jurors and witnesses, they allow jurors and potential jurors to connect to the Internet to research cases, look up information on cases. All things that could cause, at the least a delay or mistrial, or at the worst harm to a winess or juror. Are people so self absorbed that they cannot se the big picture?
As for people having to return to their cars with phones, just as many have to return for the other restricted items ( scissors, knives, pepper spray, cameras ) the sad truth is people often don’t pay attention or follow instructions. If everyone did, there’d be no need for a courthouse.
I think the header should read “As many as 20k people were forced to walk 500ft back to their car before returning to the. courthouse and being denied the convenience of having their cell phone so that the wheels of justice can freely spin”
Noble, I don’t necessarily think we have to be allowed to carry all of our electronic arsenal in to the courthouse. I would like to see more signs in parking areas that say leave the dang thing in your car so I didn’t have to make multiple trips. And another place to put the notice would be on any ticket or summons as well.
I think we as a society are so reliant on our cell phones. We have turned into “cell phone zombies”! I have been out at dinner and have seen people instead of engaging the person/persons you are with in a conversation are on cell phones instead. While I understand there are many perks to having a cell phone, yes I myself have one and hate to leave home without, there is a time and place to use it. During a court proceeding is a place and time when it should not be used. Just my opinion. Also, how did the world possibly exist before cell phones?! (Said sarcastically of course!)
LOL, I was at a restaurant yesterday and, Dad, Mom, and their 2 children were ALL on a cell phone TXT. All sitting at their table for 5 minutes w/out one word between any of them. Sad.
“The court may decide to limit or prohibit the possession of electronic devices in designated areas, including courtrooms. In that event, the court will designate the restricted area and provide for the collection of devices from persons entering that area and the return of the devices to those persons when they leave the area.”
Sounds like the entire building has been designated a restricted area – there you have it.
I recall serving on jury duty for hours on end, for days in a row at a courthouse in Baltimore City. One ‘elderly’ gentleman had to drive over 2 hrs to get there each day. Not a soul owned a cell phone. We read books/magazines, some did crafts, some took care of paperwork, some slept, but many simply passed the time … Talking to Each Other.
There are still far too many of us around that made it through every day without a cell phone, well in to adulthood and therefore just can’t get too excited over the “waahhh, I neeeed my cell phone” crowd.
Folks, the question here is not whether we are too dependent on cell phones, or whether we need them. The issue is that one judge, in one county, has decided to set a policy for his courthouse that runs counter to the State’s rules for courts that are in effect in 22 other jurisdictions. In other words, do the rules apply to Judge Carr or not? Does he get to make up his own rules? That is the core issue here.
Phones were (or are still, can’t remember) banned from the courthouse in Cecil county for years.
They were also banned in Balto Co several years ago (or still are).
The policy states: “Under Maryland Rule 16-110, possession and use of cell phones, computers, cameras, and other electronic devices may be limited or prohibited in designated areas of court facilities.” Therefore, Judge Carr is exercising his right by law to limit or prohibit the use of these devices past the security booth in the court house which is a designated area of the court facility. Makes sense to me.
But is that prohibition justified or necessary? I do not think so.
The cell phones can be used by persons to photograph witnesses then email them to gang members. That actually happened some years ago in Circuit Court. The court received a threat the same afternoon. They are a security issue. There is no way to police those items once they are in court unless they make noise. They are also fake cell phones that can fire bullets. Maybe people don’t remember the days when no one owned a cell. Somehow we seemed to survive.
So? Security procedures could easily handle this with a few adjustments.
One possible scenario: each prospective juror is allowed to bring in two electronic devices, which are subject to x-ray and hand inspection, the type (phone, ebook, tablet, mp3 player, game system, etc) noted on a check-in sheet by security at the entrance to the building. After voir dire, the bailiff would retrieve the sheet, remove the noted devices from the selected jurors, and do a quick wand & bag peek to make sure that two jurors did not collude to switch devices between them (in the unlikely occurence two persons selected for duty knew each other and were willing to engage in such a scheme) if one were selected.
Bottom line the man in charge of the building doesnt want cell phones in the building. Doesnt matter what the reason is. He has that right as the head judge to set the restricted areas. Nuff said.
And we, as the public with interest in attending open court proceedings, or sitting for hours on end in a stuffy room reading 5 year old magazines, have a right to question his choices.
Or bring your own books and magazines, knucklehead.
Some of us prefer to not waste trees on paper publications.
Absolutely, Kharn, it is still America and we do have the right to question. But apparently he has the right to decide. And he has decided no. I were in his place I would very reluctantly make the same decision because of the nefarious aspects but also because a lot of people are just plain idiots when it comes to their cell phones.