A good number of the people who enter the courthouse on any given day are criminal types, many of them convicted felons with violent histories. Despite this, history has shown that a majority of violent courthouse crimes, nationwide, are committed by those involved in civil matters. An example would be a father who was just informed by a judge that he is losing custody of his children, shooting his ex-wife as they leave the courtroom. Courthouse violent crime is not committed by courthouse employees, it is committed by non-employees who have entered the courthouse with a weapon. That is why they do, and should, search the people who enter the courthouse and not the court employees.

The two posters above my post here don’t get the point. No one is saying that screening isn’t needed at the courthouse. But if “all men are equal” than the government employees need to be screened as well. Frankly, if I need to take someone, anyone to small claims court or get information on the subject from the clerk of courts. I’m subject to being searched and I’m no criminal not even close. In fact I pay insane amounts of taxes and frankly should be treated better than any tax feed employee.
As the story above clearly made the point. The folks that have everyone’s lives in their hands flying the jets that everyone is getting on board go through the screening.
This is yet another case in proof that the tax feed feel they are better than the rest of us. The raw truth about the tax feed is they have little to no respect to tax paying citizens as seen by their own actions. Watch how they walk and not what they say.

Tax Feed? Is that a code word for Government Employee? I don’t care if I get screened going through security like everyone else for what good it will do. The only outlandish comment I have seen so far is “In fact I pay insane amounts of taxes and frankly should be treated better than any tax feed employee.” I pay taxes too. You are not better than me, and I am not your slave just because I am a government employee. In this day and age security is important. Plenty of nut jobs out there. Screening is just a minor inconvenience, and I agree it should apply to all.

Common sense! As time marches on, we seem to be losing it.

I went to the court house, maybe 2 years ago, to get a sticker for my license plate. So naturally I was scrutinized by the security detail. I removed my belt, placed my keychain in the Tupperware dish and walked through the portal. Bingo! But Barney Fife noticed I had a keychain knife on my keyring… a knife with maybe a 1.5-inch blade. You woulda thought he just apprehended the Unabomber! Security went to Condition RED until they escorted me off the premises! (Thankfully I wasn’t tased!) I walked across the street and a kindly clerk at Winco agreed to hold my weapon of mass destruction… she said it happens all the time.

(I jaywalked – I’m a REBEL!)

There are probably unstable county employees who are walking around INSIDE the court house with keychain knives, and with the fuse burning!

I went to the county court to do my homestead exemption paperwork and had to return to my car to hide my deadly 3/4″ pocket knife which is on my key chain….

No free state lasts long when the only folk who are secure in their property and person are government. I consider that government building as, along with the airport, and post office, the least safe and secure places in Boise. I try very hard to avoid them all.

Joe, this:

“Courthouse violent crime is not committed by courthouse employees, it is committed by non-employees who have entered the courthouse with a weapon”

Could be reversed for the Post Office….should we issue weapons to customers to protect themselves from those folk?

The day after the “shoe bomber”, I was flying from Chicago Midway back home. As I was standiong in the abnormally long security lines, the line for employees and crews was next to me. I overheard a security screener tell a man in uniform that she wouldn’t allow him to keep his nail clippers(maybe two inches long tops) because, “after all, you could use these to take over the aircraft”. His response was, “lady, that is my intention, I am the captain of the GD plane”! If there is a perceived need to screen the public, screen everybody!

So who screens the security screening people?

When you work somewhere you kind of bypass this process. It isn’t an equality issue…if you want to go into the building without being searched apply for a job!

Dave, I still don’t see a double standard. There is a slippery slope here. Where do you start searching people and where do you stop? There are armed officers throughout the courthouse, should we re-evaluate their mental stability each month to insure that they don’t shoot anyone at work? It seemes to me that the only people who would feel that courthouse employees can enter the courthouse unsearched is unfair, are the same type of people who think public employees are ‘tax feeders”. Additionally, the search at the courthouse is primarily about weapons, so to make the argument that some employees have stolen money from the taxpayers while acting in their official capacity is somehow proof that other government employees will use their ability to bypass security to commit a violent crime is ridiculous.

EDITOR NOTE– Joe, if you figuratively lock the front door, but leave the back open, you don’t have security. And to use your argument. Just because a bad guy carried a weapon into a courthouse in Oho doesn’t mean Boise people would do it. Do you advocate searches at ALL government buildings? Would you exempt county employees from airport searches (if they are trusted in court, wouldn’t they be trusted at an airport?).

Editor, I consider public employees to be the same as the general public except in their job protection during economic downturns, no better or worse. I consider politicians to be somewhere below those folk who go door to door offering to reseal your driveway. I object to the near strip searches at the court as I do the same practices at airports. Folk trying to serious harm are not deterred by randomly searching granny and security that only covers the public but exempts employees or is easily bypassed is not security but simply a security blanket. It is like ‘gun free zones’….it only disarms folk who obey the law to begin with.

back door.
The fact is, it IS possible for me & anyone, to slip in the back door while walking in with a county employee- even if they don’t know me.

If someone wants to get a gun in the building, they certainly can do it.

If someone wants to take out documents or other supposedly secure material- evidence- they can.

It’s terrible security and the county building is poorly designed. The only thing the county accomplishes is to irritate the law abiding citizens and show how dumb they are.

It reminds me of the terrible security at the Federal Building.

Re: Courthouse Security/Open Meeting Law Violation

Just the Facts:

Case: The Board of Ada County Commissioners was accused of violating the state’s open meeting law by discussing with a Boise City councilman intergovernmental relations and a possible lawsuit over a pending housing development during a June 2005 executive session. The lawsuit was initiated by the Idaho attorney general.

In March 2006, the district court ruled the county committed two violations of the open meeting law: holding an executive session without a lawyer present and not keeping a written record of the vote to go into executive session. Each commissioner (Tilman, Yzaguirre and Peavey-Derr) received a $150 fine. The commissioners the lower court decision to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s open meeting law was “confusing and ambiguous.” In May 2007, the Idaho Supreme Court sided with the commissioners in their argument that they were allowed under existing law to meet behind closed doors without a lawyer present. The court sided against the county on the second violation of not keeping a written record of the vote to go into the session.

The Supreme Court sent back to the district court the question of whether commissioners knowingly violated the open meeting law,which would subject to a fine.

According to an Aug. 23 court order to dismiss the case: “The parties agree that in the best interests of justice and to avoid unnecessary ependitures of further public funds, no fine will be sought.”

In August 2007, the Idaho attorney general decided not to puruse fines against the commissioners.

In 2009, Idaho’s open meeting laws were revamped with the following changes:

Under the new law, public officials who violate its provisions face a civil penalty of up to $50 for first time offenses. But the fines escalate to up to $500 for second and subsequent offenses.
The new law also clarifies when and how city councils, county commissions or school boards can meet behind closed doors in executive session. And it provides a framework for officials and public agencies to fix past violations

Regarding courthouse security: FRISK THEM ALL!

EDITOR NOTE–Nicely done and many thanks for the clarification. The discussion included talk of EMS ambulance service and fire deptartment.

Re KappaTA, More like obfuscation than clarification.

True – The supremes found Tilman, Yzagirre and Peavey Derr Innocent of one portion of the open meeting law because they didn’t do it “knowingly.”

Roll that around in your mind for a second. It is okay for a commissioner to violate the law if they are too stupid to know they are violating the law! (I dare you to try that defense in traffic court.) So, explicitly, for those three to claim innocence is to also claim stupidness. You decide which is worse.

True- The supremes found Tilman, Yzagirre and Peavey Derr GUILTY of violating the portion of the open meeting calling for written records of meetings. The commissioners only had a voice record of the meeting in question. The supremes figured even Tilman, Yzagirre and Peavey Derr were intelligent enough to know the difference between paper and tape.

True – At the supremes, it is not enough to win one count, you have to win them all. The one count of guilt was enough to send it back to lower court to determine penalties.

True – The AG’s office declined to pursue damages thinking, correctly, that having proved the greater point that the open meeting law had been violated, spending several additional thousands of dollars to win a settlement of $450 or less would be counter productive.

True – Tilman, Yzagirre and Peavey Derr spent about $30,000 in taxpayer money to avoid their personal $150 fines. They ultimately did not have to pay the fines, but they are guilty of the offense.

Do you want to know the biggest reason it makes sense not to force every county employee to use the entrance? Because it costs the county a LOT of money to hire enough security personnel to thoroughly search every person who walks in the door. It costs money because it delays employees (especially the salaried ones) from doing there job. It costs money to pay the security people. And trust me… it also spares everyone with a 8:15 court hearing the displeasure of waiting an extra 20 minutes for their hearing to start because one of the many employees required to be there to get started is stuck in a security line while Joe Criminal in front of them is being searched.

In regard to “friends” being allowed in: Ada County Courthouse employees are very strictly told NOT to bring their friends into the side or basement entrances. I know of at least one prosecutor that got in trouble for letting her friend come in with her (which was caught on camera). During high-traffic times there are security personnel that sit at those entrances and monitor to make sure extra people do not enter.

So the real question is….. if we want everyone to be treated equally, are we the taxpayers willing to foot the bill for the delay and extra security personnel to have employees searched every day (twice a day if they go to lunch)?

Ex County Person,
your references of an employee being delayed at 8:15 to be in court is almost laughable.

You know, in some work environments, employees actually get to work EARLY to start their day. Some even PLAN ahead for known delays like security checks.

If you would like to justify employee access to avoid delays of court starting, perhaps you would also like to provide a special lane on I-84 of 2C Communters on snowy days, just so court can start on time? We all love county employees with reasoning like yours.

I am still lost here Mr. Watcher…..

Are you saying all government employees are Taxfeeders and don’t pay taxes?

Or do you mean something entirely different? Just asking for a clarification of the term and your meaning is all.

If you mean because I am a government employee I don’t pay taxes and therefore am some second class citizen that deserves no say in anything and should worship the very ground you walk on then yes I think I might possibly take offense to that. I pay property taxes like you and everyone else, and income taxes too just like you and everyone else.

If you mean something else, then help me out here because I don’t understand your message. I have served the public faithfully in both the Army and as an Law Enforcement Officer for over 20 years now. I make a fair salary for what I do. Some say you couldn’t pay them enough to do my job, others hate me for what I do just because I am a government employee. If you don’t think I earn my salary, then I’m sorry you feel that way.

I don’t expect anyone to be treated any differently than me and am more than willing to be subjected to screening like anyone else. In fact the last time I flew, apparently the FAA thought I was somehow suspicious and flagged my boarding pass. I got searched so many times during my trip it bordered on ridiculous. It would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

Points I was searched at:
Ticket counter
Security checkpoint
Boarding area
Changed planes-boarding area

and all again in reverse on the return trip.

Every point along the way I got to hear how I was “Randomly ” selected for these searches. But you know what? It’s what everyone else has to go through too so I’m willing to bear it.

I can only hope that someday our paths will cross, and that I can render some type of service to you that makes it all worthwhile for you.

In the meantime I can only wish you good luck in life and hope you have better times ahead.

EDITOR NOTE–In the interest of civility, we attempt to catch and remove inflammatory name calling. There is no need to use this blog to discuss meanings etc. While the GUARDIAN uses, coppers, supremes, Team Dave, councilors, growthophobes, we do it as a matter of writing style and not as a pejorative. “Feedburner” no is no longer an approved term.

To Easter:

The courthouse doesn’t open until 8am brainchild. So raising the issue that an employee there at 8am that can’t get through the line, up to their floor, put their personal belongings away, and get into the courtroom in time for an 8:15 hearing is a VERY legitimate issue if you’ve ever seen the lines there at that time of day. If we open the public entrance to the courthouse earlier we run into several issues, the most important being $$$ for increasing hours of security personnel.

Kappa

Very sure I am an ex-employee. I’m not sure if you are implying that I wasn’t ever an employee or that I might not be “ex.” I have not worked there for about 1 year. If you choose not to believe any of that, well it’s your choice…

The reason they set cases at 8:15 is because of case overload. Not setting cases that early will mean that the court docket slows down and the county gets in trouble (again) with the Idaho Supreme Court for not getting criminal cases through the door fast enough. Slowing down the court system means that cases are dismissed for lack of speedy resolution. Ada co. judges have the highest case load per judge in the entire state by any margin. They obviously need more judges based on the number of cases… but that is expensive, too. When you don’t adequately staff and fund the court system… something’s gotta give. In this case, it is security as it applies to employees. I’d rather them cut a corner there than somewhere else, though.

Easter,

Your confrontational approach to an adult conversation is what is laughable. Your uncivil tone leaves me, and others, I am sure wondering what your real issue is. Your posts are condescending and better suited to an internet chat room.