Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 15 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Courthouse security examined
Published Thursday, November 5, 2009
Courthouse security is an ongoing topic of discussion in Chilton County Commission meetings, but little has been done in recent years to improve the building’s security.
While some believe additional security measures are needed, however, others do not see the need.
Photo by Scott Mims
Unlocking doors: County Administrator Vanessa Hendrick opens a door at the Chilton County Courthouse with a key card.
“It’s something we need to seriously look at,” said Commissioner Allen Caton.
Among the most recent additions are security cameras on the third floor, where the courtrooms are located, and at most entrances. Locks were also installed on exterior doors — except the main entrance — requiring the use of a key card.
Those allowed to have key cards include courthouse employees, law enforcement, 911 dispatchers, attorneys and others in the judicial system. Caton said the process of obtaining a key card is not as relaxed as before.
“It used to be so bad that if Hitler wanted a key card to our courthouse, all he had to do was come in and ask for it,” he said.
As of March 2009, a resolution requires department heads to approach the commission in person to request cards for employees. Due to confusion over this policy, the resolution was read aloud at the last commission meeting.
“There are currently 248 active cards,” said County Administrator Vanessa Hendrick.
A committee was assembled last year to look into security improvements and make recommendations to the commission. The three-member committee comprises Sheriff Kevin Davis, Homeland Security and County EMA Director Bill Collum, and Caton.
One recommendation was to move metal detectors from the third floor down to the main entrance. Another was to make photo ID tags for employees.
“Nothing’s been done,” Collum said.
An argument against moving the metal detectors was that long lines could cause people to stand in the rain. As for the ID tags, the county has the equipment but the measure was never approved.
Collum said the county might have difficulty obtaining additional Homeland Security funding because a grant has already been administered for that purpose. But many of the recommendations are inexpensive, “common sense” steps, he said.
“I’m not sure I would say let’s spend tons of money on securing the courthouse,” he said.
Commissioner Joe Headley is against making any improvements at the present time.
“I think it’s fine like it is,” Headley said, adding, “You don’t have to empty your pockets out to go in [Clanton] city hall.”
Even Caton admitted that while other courthouses have more security, many seem to feel that similar measurers are not needed in Chilton County.
“People look at our county as a safe county,” he said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Two points:
1) An argument against moving the metal detectors was that long lines could cause people to stand in the rain.
If someone does not wish to get wet, don't go to the courthouse in the rain. On the other hand, why can some sort of covering not be raised over the area?
2) As for the ID tags, the county has the equipment but the measure was never approved.
Sounds like the commission needs to place more emphasis on such issues. Security is more important than some things our politicians waste time and money on.
Posted by PrAaHe (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, we could start by not leaving all those convicts running around the courthouse unattended and doing as they please. everytime I go i pass a group of them sitting on the steps or on a table outside. Theyre usually pretty nice, but I'm still not sure its a good idea to leave them alone.
Posted by alive (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those are convicts sitting on the steps outside??? OMG!!!
Posted by PrAaHe (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
er..you know what i mean :P prisoners..potential convicts though, if one ever decides to make a break for it
Posted by out_spoken_1 (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not trying to sound ugly by saying this and hope no offense is taken . But the ppl thats sittin out front in the orange suits didn't go to jail just for a vacation . They commited some kind of crime to be there . No matter the situation , when one has it in their head to run , their gone . Then the courts wonder why ??? Maybe cause they were unsupervised!!! It's sad the criminals have more freedom than the average honest working person does .
Posted by urentitled2myopinion (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I recently spent a lot of time at the courthouse and after the first couple of days never had to go through the detector again.? I wondered about this policy,I also remember seeing it unattended on more than one occasion. There were several of us that noticed this and committed about it among ourselves. Also seen a lot of loitering going on, mostly by the "prisoners? " I don't understand that title, they seemed to have as much freedom to come and go as I did.
Posted by kdavis (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a few comments that I think I should pass on to the people of the county.
1st.--The inmates working at the courthouse was stopped many months back because of some of the very reasons you are talking about. The only time inmates should be at the courthouse is if there is a deputy sheriff within sight. A will go on to say if you see a inmate and do not see the deputy please let me know. I feel the same as most of you, inmates are to be in jail not walking the hall of your courthouse.
2nd.--I do feel that the detectors should be used all the time or never and everyone or noone should have to go threw them. To operate the detector at the front door each and every day the courthouse is open will require more personel which will require more money and we all know that is our problem.
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sheriff Davis, thank you for again taking the time to explain some things for us. Would you, or can you legally, consider the use of trained volunteers to man the metal detectors? I would be willing to offer some hours to help with this if it is allowed.
Posted by kdavis (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Comment to Phil Burnette
To answer your question Yes.
Trained volunteers could be used for this job are at least help with it. I do feel that we could use personnel other than deputies to do this job. I would even say it could be done maybe with one deputy overseeing a few trained volunteers. The important thing here is trained volunteers. It doesn't do any good to put the detectors at the front door if we can not stop what ever threat is walking in. The truth is that the money is not as big of an issue as is the politics in the move. Noone wants to make anyone mad for having to wait in line or do anything different from what we have always done. We do have the the attitude in this county that it will never happen here. The sad fact is if you talk to some of the ones who has lived one of the incident we are talking about they to felt that way until it happened.
Posted by PrAaHe (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see the inmate thing was cleaned up before anything really bad happened and an innocent person was injured/killed.
Thanks for the update, Sheriff!
Posted by travlr423 (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
maybe we should place armed guards at the entrance of every business in the county and at every church door on sunday morning. If your gonna live in fear every day of your life perhaps it is because you have given in to fear and have become a hostage of your own self, sounds kind of like you have sold your own soul and dont even realize it. The way i see it if today is my day, I hope things are good with me and my maker and i have seeded no unjust contentions between my neighbor and my self.
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Travlr, let's not be totally asinine. I do not feel we need guards at every place where people gather but I do feel that if security measures are already in place they should be utilized.
I also believe that more responsible people should get trained on proper use of firearms and so equip themselves. Check it out for yourself. Areas where the citizenry is proportionately more well equipped have overall lower crime rates.
I am not endorsing the idea of every single person taking on a wild West mentality but rather those who are capable of such intelligently and properly preparing to defend themselves and others.
Our LEOs can not be everywhere at once and can not materialize out of thin air the second you need them. It is incumbent upon you to take those common sense precautions to protect yourself.
No, we can not and will not prevent every crime or save every life. But we can increase our odds by being intelligently prepared. It is not fear, it is common sense.
Posted by southernpride (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Phil, if everyone wore a gun on their hip, my bet is crime would drop drastically.
There was a town in Minnesota or so I believe that required or okayed it for everyone to tote a pistol on their hip and crime dropped almost 90%.
I can not recall the town or state but do remember it was in the news a couple of years ago.
Posted by steveb10 (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwsrgraves,
I am not sure what town you are talking about, but here is an article that refutes your statement.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI...
Posted by steveb10 (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kswgraves,
You were responding to southernpride who had stated "There was a town in Minnesota or so I believe that required or okayed it for everyone to tote a pistol on their hip and crime dropped almost 90%.I can not recall the town or state but do remember it was in the news a couple of years ago."
By your response, you were stating that Florida had a law that required or okayed everyone in the state to open carry a gun on their hip. Then you stated that Florida rescinded the law because shootings skyrocketed.
This is simply not true. Florida has had a right-to-carry law since 1987 that has never been rescinded. I am not sure why you have brought up Alabama law, since the topic of your original post and my response dealt with towns not in Alabama and Florida state law.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)