Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Most federal courthouses prohibit two items: weapons and cellphones. Electronic devices are like a plague that has descended upon courts, and, like the most virulent germs, they survive by morphing into ever more sophisticated forms. Pagers became cellphones and then picture phones. Laptops were trumped by PDAs (personal digital assistants, such as a BlackBerry). Both often have recording capabilities. And now stun guns come disguised as cellphones-but it is safe to assume that these fall into the weapons category and are banned. When it comes to nonweapon electronic devices, lawyers and their clients had better check the local rules. One rule of thumb involving cellphones, though, seems to be consistent: If you bring it into court, one day it will ring-and it will cost you. Lawrence F. Clark, a Dauphin County, Pa., judge, recently ordered a bailiff to drop a ringing cellphone out of a five-story window onto a roof below. Fortunately, the bailiff had taken it away from its owner first. But while lawyers and members of the public are getting the message about electronic gadgetry in the courthouse, an old prohibition looms over new technology-picture phones, recorders in laptops and PDAs. The Illinois Supreme Court has long banned camera and recording devices in courtrooms. In December, it clarified its definitions: “[T]he use of the terms ‘photographs,’ ‘broadcasting,’ and ‘televising’ include the audio or video transmissions or recordings made by telephones, personal data assistants, laptop computers, and other wired or wireless data transmission and recording devices.” The cellphone police Deputy sheriffs are trained to spot the devices with those capabilities among members of the public, said Gary Dodge, court administrator for Illinois’ 18th Judicial Circuit in DuPage County. “If one is spotted, they’re required to return them to their vehicles,” Dodge said. “We’re reluctant to take them away from attorneys, because they’ve got work to do, but they understand the ramifications of breaking the rules.” Taking a picture or recording sound is an ethical violation, Dodge said. A now-retired traffic court judge in DuPage County is reputed to have jailed three ringing cellphone offenders for contempt-one overnight. In Charleston, S.C., which has a ban similar to the Illinois model, a judge jailed a mother of three for two nights for a phone that rang during a sentencing hearing. But she got off easy compared to the prisoner who was sentenced to life right before she was jailed. Judge John Fogleman in Arkansas’ 2d Judicial District eschews jailing offenders, but takes their ringing phones away-temporarily-and puts them in a drawer. “On pleas and arraignment days, it’s near chaos,” he said, so he warns everyone beforehand to turn off their electronic devices. Last December, he had the bailiff take an offending phone away from a young woman. It rang again. He tried but couldn’t figure out how to turn it off, so he answered it “to get it from keep ringing. It was a man on the other end,” Fogleman said. “It wasn’t clear to me whether he was trying to complete a drug or a prostitution deal. I said, ‘Can I tell her who’s calling?’ and he hung up.” Fogleman wouldn’t consider jailing phone offenders unless they resisted his bailiffs’ efforts to take their phones away. Picture phones, though, have become a problem with no solution yet in sight. No pictures are allowed in Arkansas courts without the consent of both parties and the judge. “We’re not up with the game yet,” Fogleman said. “We’d probably never really know for sure, so we may have to pass a rule eliminating them all together. There could be a lot of mischief we don’t allow.” Besides protecting witnesses and prisoners, U.S. marshals have added cellphone vigilance to their mission of protecting federal courts. Billy Walker, judicial court security officer for the Middle District of Florida, a deputy U.S. marshal, said rules are consistent in four of the district’s locations in Fort Myers, Orlando, Ocala and Jacksonville: No cellphones. In Tampa, though, there’s an experimental project that allows lawyers to check cellphones in lockers in the lobby of the federal building. Laptops are allowed by individual court order. PDAs are allowed if they do not have recording or photo-taking capabilities. “It is a difficult task that requires each device to be screened,” said Walker. “The ever-changing and evolving technology and the multifunctions of devices makes the delineation between acceptable and unacceptable devices difficult.” Translation: He appreciates the fact that lawyers and the general public don’t get hot-tempered when the lines to enter their federal buildings back up. Anchorage, Alaska’s Chief Deputy U.S. Marshall Wanda Phillips has seen what happens when new technology meets new technology and it’s not pretty. It turned out that a cellphone in the silent mode or one that vibrated disrupted the court’s new recording system. Thus the ban. No checking them in with marshals either. “We don’t have the room or the staff,” Phillips said. “They have to leave them elsewhere, in their cars or somewhere else.” But separating a lawyer from a cellphone may be disorienting. “At first they were a little confused,” Phillips said, referring to their having to leave cellphones outside the courthouse. Bullet-firing cellphones Florida’s Walker has seen a stun gun that masquerades as a cellphone, and another cellphone that fires a .22-caliber long-rifle bullet, but so far no one has tried to smuggle either through security. Neither of these phonelike weapons functions as a phone and one can only hope that drivers holding cellphones to their heads during the morning commute didn’t pick up the wrong devices from their nightstands. The ban on cellphones in federal courts has caused reporters their share of embarrassment, too. Journalists barred from using the phones in New York federal court flew to the courthouse steps after the Martha Stewart trial concluded waving scarves and placards in an effort to be first to report the verdict�some succeeded in getting the details wrong in their initial reports. Post’s e-mail address is [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.