G en. 103] 103 C OUR T S AN D J UDGES

) C I RCUI T C OURTS

— S TATE ’ S A TTORNEY

— A UT HORI T Y T O I NSTI TUTE C OURTHO USE S ECURI TY P ROC E DU RE

M ar ch 15, 1993

T h e H o n o ra b le P a u l H. W

e in ste in C ount y Adm i nis tr at i ve J

udge

Y ou hav e asked for ou r opi nion on y ou r aut ho ri t y , as C ou nty A d m in istra tiv e Ju d g e , to in stitu te c e rta in c o u rth o u s e se c u rity pr ocedur es . A ddi t i onal l y , y ou as k w hetherempl oy ees of the O ffi ce of t he S t at e’ s A t t orney m us t compl yw i t h y ouradmi ni s t r at i ve or der th a t r equ i res cou rtho use em ploy ees and off i ci al s t o o btai n id e n tif ic a ti o n c a rd s th ro u g h th e S h e rif f ’s O f f ice , to c o m p lyw ith s ecur i t y pr ocedur es es t abl i s hed by t he Sher i ff for per s ons en ter i ng t he court hous e, and t o vaca t e the pr emi ses if t he Sher i ff s ounds an a la rm in th e e v e n t o f

a p e rc e iv e d e m e rg e n c yin th e b u ild in g . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e a s f o llo w s: 1

. A C o u n tyA d m in istra tiv e Ju d g e h a s a u th o rityto in stitu te re a s o n a b le c o u rt h o u s e s e c u ri ty p ro c e d u re s . 2. T he Stat e’s A tt or neyand the s t aff of thatoffi ce maybe re q u ire d to c o m p lyw ith law f u llye sta b lish e d c o u rth o u se se c u rity p ro c e d u re s th a t d o n o t in ter f e re w ith th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

th e ir s ta tu to ry d u tie s .

I

A u th o rity O v er C o u rth o u se S ec u rity

“ [ C ]o u rt h o u s e p re m is e s a re s u b je c t to th e c o n tr o l o f

th e c o u rt .” Sh e p p a rdv . Ma x w e ll , 3 8 4 U

. S

. 3 3 3 , 3 5 8 (19 6 6 ). A s a n ec essa ry i ncident of the adm i nis t rat i on of j ust i ce, a j ud ge has t he pow e r to m a in ta in o rd e r i n th e c o u rt

. P h ili p v . T o llett , 330 F. Supp. 776, 780104 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y (E

. D

. T en n . 1 9 7 1 ). T h u s, as a ge n era l m att er, th e issu an ce o f o rde rs r el at i n g t o c o u r t h o u s e s e c u r i t ya r e a n a s p e c to f a c o u r t ’ s i n h e r e nt po w ers . Secur i t yfor the cour tand i ndi vi dual j udges , undercomm on l aw , w as pr ovi ded by t he sher i ff. A t t or neyG ener al B ur ch, quot i ng an ol d t r eat i s e, s um m ar i zed the s her i ff ’s d u tyof att endanc e on the c o u rt: “I n E ngl and i tw as i ncumbent upon [the

sher i ff ] t o mee tt he j ud ge s on t he i rpr og res s through their cir cu it s, u su all yu p o n the b o rde rs o f t h e c o u n t y , e s c o r tt h e n t o t h e a s s i z e t o wn w ith m u c h d isp lay an d a n tiq u e c e re m o n ial, pr ocur e f o rth e m sui t abl e quart er s , at t end them w i t h hi s under

- s her i ff, and a su ffi ci entcorps of d epu t i es and b ai l i ffs du ri ng t heirset t i ng s, and att he cl os e of the t er m sp ee d t he part i ng gues t s w i t h t he l i ke demonstr at i ons of r es pect w i t h w hi ch theyw er e w el comed. “I n t he U ni t ed St at es t hes e form al i t i es have been ge ner al l y di s r egar ded .

. . . [I ] n gener al t he s ubs t ance of the comm on l aw dut i es of the s her i ff t ow ar d t he court s has been pr es er ved, butt he ef

fet e form al i s m of t he pas thas fal l en i nt o des uetude. “The j udge l ooks to [ t he s her i ff] for w hats oev er i n the w ayof m at eri al adjunc ts m aybe nec es s aryor conveni enti n di s char gi ng h is ju d icia l d u ties , a n d th e sh e rif f m u st n o t f

a il t o m eett hi s exp ec tat i on. H e i s , of cour s e, r equi r ed t o have a s ui t abl e number of deput i es to m e e t a n y e m e rg e n c yth a t m a ya rise , an d in s o m e s t at es i s author i zed t o s um m on cons t abl es of the county , w ho, for the t i m e, p e rfo rm i n p art , atl east , t he d utyor dep u ty s h e ri f f s .”G en. 103] 105 57 O pi ni ons of

the A tt o rn ey G ener al614, 615- 18 ( 1972) ( quot i ng M ur fee , A Tre at is e on the Law of Sher i f f s and O therMi nis t er i al O f f i cers 1 9 4 -9 6 (2 d . 1 8 9 0 ))

. In M ary l and, t he dut i es of the s her i ff a r e the comm on l aw dut i es t hatexi s t ed att he t im e o f the adopt i on of the M ary l and C o n stitu tio n a n d su c h g r e a ter o r le ss e r d u ties su b se q u e n tly pr esc ri b ed byt he G ener al A s s embl y ; t he comm on l aw dut i es in c lu d e d a tte n d a n c e u p o n th e c o u rt

. G re e n v . S ta te , 122 M d. 288, 89 A . 6 0 8 (1 9 1 4 ). See a l

so R ucker v. H

arf ord C ou n ty , 3 16 M d. 275, 287, 558 A

. 2d 399 ( 1989)

. T he C our t of A ppeal s has obs er ved “that or di nar i l y s her i ffs r et ai n t he pow er s t hey pos s es s ed atcomm on l aw i ncl udi ng . . . pr ovi di ng s ecur i t y for cour t s . . . . ” So per v. Mon t

go m ery C o u n ty , 294 M d. 331, 336- 37, 449 A

. 2d 1158 ( 1982)

. I n Soper , t he Co u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a twh i l e “ [ t ] h e Le g i s l a tu r e h a s c o d i f i e d s o me o f th e c o m m o n law d u tie s o f th e sh e rif

f s ... it h a s n o t su b sta n tially di m i ni s hed thos e comm on l aw dut i es , butr ather has l eftt hem e s s e n tia lly in ta c t.” 2 9 4 M d . a t 3 3 7

. T he func t i ons of the s her i ff ar e contr ol l ed “by St at e comm on l a w , b y t h e G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y an d by the ju d icia ry . . . . ” R ucke rv. H a rfo rdC o u n ty , 3 1 6 M d

. at 28 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e sh eriff ’s at t endanc e upon t he cour t s i s a dut y exer ci s ed “for t he conve ni ence of the court s . ” G re e n v . S ta te , 122 M d. at195. A s A t t or neyG ener al B u rc h su g g e ste d , situ a tio n s s o m e tim e s a rise th a t re q u ire th e c o u rt to r equestaddi t i onal as s i s t ance fr om t he s her i ff’ s offi ce: “The exac t natur e of thi s as s i s t ance and th e ci r cumst ance s w hi ch w oul d m ake itap p rop ri ate a re b ett er reso lved b ythe c o u rt s an d th e sh eriff ’s off i ce w hi c h h a ve fu l l e rkn ow l edg e of those facts and ci rcum st ances, w or ki ng as they do w i t h t hos e pr obl ems on a da i l ybas i s . ” 57 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener alat621. A r eques t forover al l cour t hous e s ecur i t yor di nar i l yw oul d be in iti a ted b yth e C o u n ty A d m in istra tiv e Ju d g e . U n d e r M a ry lan d R u le 1200 d 2, a C ount yA dm i ni s t r at i ve J udge, s ubj ectt o t he gene r al s uper vi s i on of the C hi ef J udge of t he C our tof A ppeal s and the di r ect s uper vi s i on of the C i r cui t A dm i ni s t r at i ve Judge, i s r es pons i bl e “f or the a d m inistrati o n o f ju sti ce an d fo r th e ad m inistrati o n o f th e c o u rt forw hi ch he i s C ount yA dm i ni s t r at i ve J udge. ” W hat evert he s cope or appli cabil i t yof R ule 1200 i n o t her con t exts , t h e ru le p rov i des a m echa ni s m fort he court ’ s exer ci s e of a pow ert hat , i n th is c o n te x t, is w ith in its in h e re n t a u th o rity . T h e re fo re , th e C o u n ty106 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

As a practical matter , the level of assistancethat can beaf

forded 1 by the sherif f may be aff

ecte d by budg etar

y constraints. We ha

ve not been asked, a nd there foredo not address, the potential impact of insuffic ient c ounty re so urc e s o n s e c urity

me a sure s so ught b y

a c ourt

. A dm i ni s t r at i ve J udge, i n t he j udge’ s s uper vi s or y capa ci t y, m ay r eques t t he sher i f

f of t he count y t o exer ci s e t he s her i f f ’ s com m on l aw dut y of

at t endanc e upon t h e co ur t by pr ovi di ng s uch r eas onabl e m eas ur es f

or cour t hous e s ecur i t y. 1 A n A tto rn e y G e n e ra l’s o p in io n c a n n o t a p p ro p ria te ly com m enton t he f

ea si b i l i t y or appr opr i at enes s of t he par t i cul ar m eas ur es cont em pl at ed f or t he M ont gom er y C ount y C our t hous e. I n and of

i t s el f , a r equi r em ent t hat cour t ho u se p er s onnel w ear id e n tific a tio n b a d g e s is re a s o n a b ly re la te d to c o u rth o u s e s e c u rity

)by, f or exam pl e, r eadi l y i dent i f yi ng t hos e w ho ar e per m i t t ed acc ess t o ar eas not open t o t he gene r al publ i c. H ow s uch a r equi r em en t r el at es t o over al l s ecur i t y pl anni ng, how ever , and w het her i t shou l d b e i m pl em ent ed i n ad van ce of ot her m easur es, ar e pol i cy m at t er s bes t l ef t t o cont i nued di s cus s i ons am o n g t he C ount y A dm i ni s t r at i ve J udge, Sher i f f , St at e’ s A t t or n ey , and C o u n ty o ff

ic ia ls

. II A p p li ca b il it y o f C o u rth o u se S ec u rity P ro ce d u re s to th e S tate ’s A ttor n ey a n d S taff T he St at e’ s A t t or ney i s a cons t i t ut i onal l y es t abl i s hed of f i ce s epar at e f

r om t he J udi ci ar y. M ar yl and C ons t i t ut i on, A r t i cl e V of th e M a ry la n d C o n s titu tio n . S e e S t a t e v . Ly k i ns , 4 3 M d. A pp. 472, 4 0 6 A .2 d 2 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ), m odi f i ed , 2 8 8 M d

. 7 1 , 4 1 5 A

. 2 d 1 1 1 3 (19 8 0 ); St at e v. H

unt er , 10 M d. A pp. 300, 270 A

. 2d 343 ( 1970)

. W hi l e the o f f ice o f th e S tate ’s A tto rn e yis in d e p e n d e n t in th e e x e rc ise o f its s t atuto ry p ow er s , i ti s s ubj ectt o s om e pow er s and author i t yof the cour t

. A s s t at ed i n t he H unt ercas e, “St at e’ s A t t orne y s, li ke other att o rne y s, are o ff

icers o f the co u rt an d su b ject t o it s co n tem p t po w ers w h e re th e irc o n d u c t is d e s e rv in g o f s u c h c o n d e m n a tio n .... D el i neat i ng t he pow er s and author i t yof t he cour t s , i n r el at i on t o t hat of the St at e’ s A t t or ney , i s a mat t erof s om e di ffi cul t y , pr oper l y t o be co n side red in li g h t of the c o n sti tuti o n al sep ara ti o n o f p o w ers doctr i ne. ” 10 M d. A pp. at305. I n Lyki ns , t he C our tnot ed that“[a ]G en. 103] 107

Whil e the administrative orde r contains a provision permitting the 2 Sheri ff or his deputie s to takeint o c us tod y pe rs on s who do no t c omp ly wi th t hese c urity

proc e dure s, we a ssume that suc h extr e me a c tio n w ou ld be re serve d for emerg ency situations. Otherwise, this provision would be unrea sonable. In th e case of cour thouse personne l who do not wear the re qu ir e d id e nti fi c atio n c ard s, su ch per so ns sim ply wo uld bere qu ir e d to c omp ly wi th the proc e dure s e sta bli sh e d f or me mbers of

theg e ne ral pu

bli c entering thecourthouse. In Hunter , th ec irc uit

c ourt dis mis se d a valid in dic tment p ri or to 3 trial to evidenc e the c ourt’s dissatisf action with the prose cutor’s pretrial

(continued...) heal t hyr es pectfo r th e del i cat e bal ance of pow er s upon w hi ch our d e m o c ra tic in stitu tio n s re st c o m p e ls th a t [ th e C o u rt] b ro o k n o lig h tly as s um ed i nt er fer ence byt he j udi ci al br anch of governm entw i t h t he funct i on of thati ndepende ntbr anch of governm entand that[the C o u rt ] no t arrog ate u n to [ th e jud ici al] bran ch su p erv isoryp o w ers w hi ch the C ons t i tut i on does notbes t ow . ” 43 M d. A pp. at473. T he C onsti tuti o n d o es b esto w u p o n the J u d ici aryau thor i tyover admi ni s t r at i on of the court s . A r t i cl e I V , §18( a) of the M ary l and C o n stitu tio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s n o t ad o p ted a ru le a d d re ss in g c o u rth o u se se c u rity ; h o w e v e r , as in d ica ted in P a rt I a b o v e , ith a s a d o p ted M a ry lan d R u le 1 2 0 0 , d e leg a tin g to a C o u n ty A d m inistrati v e Jud g e resp o n sibil ity fo r ad m inistrati o n o f t h e co u rt forw hi ch the j udge s er ves as ad m ini s t r at i ve j udge. M or eover , t he c o m m o n l a w a u t h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r te x t e n d s t o c o u r t h o u s e s e c u r i t y. A s di s cus s ed i n Par tI , w e conc l ude thatt he ci rcu it co ur t s have a u th o rityto m a k e a d m in istra tiv e ru les re a s o n a b lyre late d to c o u r t h o u s e s e c u r i t y. W e per cei ve no u n d u e i nt er fer ence w i t h per for m ance byt he S tate ’s A tto rn e ya n d sta f f o f th e sta tu to ryd u ties o f th a t o f f ice sim p ly bya requi rem ent th a t theycom plyw i t h reasonab l e cou rtho use s ecur i t ypr ocedur es . T he pr ocedur es i n ques t i on i nvol ve obt ai ni ng a n id e n tific a tio n c a rd th ro u g h th e S h e rif f ’s o f f ice, fo llo w in g se c u rity pr ocedur es es t abl i s hed by the Sher i ff f orper s ons ent er i ng t he cour t hous e, and v ac ati ng t he pr emi s es i f the Sher i ff s ounds an emer gen cy al ar m . R equi r i ng compl i ance w i t h an admi ni s t r at i ve 2 or der es t abl i s hi ng r eas onabl e court hous e s ecur i t ypr ocedur es i s not the typ e o f direct interfe ren ce w ith the st atuto ryd u ti es o f th e S tat e’s A t t or neyt hatw as i nvol ved i n t he H unt erand Lyki ns cases. 3108 [7 8 O p . A tt ’y

(...continued) 3 pe rf or manc e , p artic ula

rly h i s f ai lureto p rope rly

summo ns Statewi tne sse s. 10 Md. App. at 305. In Lykins , the c irc uit c ourt dis mis se d th eindic tment, on motion of the defendant, bec ause theState’s Attorney had once represente d the def

endant in a c ivil matter. 43 Md. App. at 474.

III C oncl usi on I n s um m ary , i ti s ouropi ni on t hatt h e C ount yA dm i ni s t r at i ve Ju d g e h a s a u th o ri ty to in stitu te r e a so n a b le c o u rth o u se se c u rity pr oc e d u r e s , a n d t h e St a t e ’ s At t o rn e ya n d h i s s t a f f ma yb e r e q u i r ed to a d h e re to th o s e p ro c e d u re s . J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ju lia M . F re it A s s is ta n t A t t or ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce