County rescinds firearms in courthouse

By: 
Jason Ferguson

The general public is once again no longer allowed to carry firearms into the Custer County Courthouse after a resolution that allowed them to do so was rescinded by the Custer County Commission at its Jan. 27 meeting.
“I really don’t feel this is all worth this,” said commissioner Travis Bies, who was serving at the first meeting of his new term as a commissioner. “All this media...cost back on the taxpayers, the inconvenience for everyone having to go to Pennington County—I think we should go back to where we were.”
Bies made the motion to rescind the resolution, which passed unanimously, but not before the motion was amended to revisit the issue in six months—July 23 to be exact—at the behest of commissioners Mark Hartman and Craig Hindle, who said they did not want to see the issue go away and that they wished the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court judges—who refused to come to Custer for court while the resolution was in place—would work with them to find common ground.
“I feel due to covid, this building has never been safer,” Hindle said. “Everyone is coming in one door, and I kind of like that idea for the future (on court days).”
Between now and July 23, the commission will investigate how other states arrived at being allowed to carry firearms in their courthouse, while also entertaining a review from the Seventh Judicial Circuit’s Court Security Committee, which was offered by the Seventh Judicial Circuit’s presiding judge, Craig Pfeifle, who was at the meeting along with fellow judge Matt Brown of Custer.
The Court Security Committee was recently put together by chief justices and includes experts from various professions, including law enforcement and other stakeholders who regulary use courthouses.
“Know that kind of review is available,” Pfeifle told the commission. “We can offer you some additional information and some contacts if a full-scale safety review is something the commission would be interested in.”
The commission originally enacted the firearms resolution in late November, which was followed by the Seventh Judicial Circuit court deciding against holding court at the Custer County Courthouse, citing safety concerns. Pfeifle reiterated it wasn’t just a decision he made arbitrarily, but that all 12 judges in the circuit came to the decision, a decision later affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court.
“This is the position of 17 judicial officers,” Pfeifle said. “(The Supreme Court) approved the position we urged them to take. We don’t want this to be a battle. We stated our position previously. I don’t think there is any utility in re-covering those grounds.”
While Seventh Circuit judges refused to come to Custer, county court has been held either in Pennington County or through audiovisual means in the Custer County Courthouse. During that time some have encouraged the commission to stand firm on its resolution, many citing the Second Amendment as a reason to do so, while others have argued firearms don’t belong in a courthouse and the inconvenience and expense of having court in Pennington County made the resolution  untenable.
The resolution did not authorize firearms in the courtroom—that was still expressly forbidden. Only law enforcement and judges may have firearms in a courtroom. Rather, the resolution opened up the rest of the courthouse—save for the area under use by the Seventh Judicial Circuit—to firearm carry by the general public. A law passed last July already allowed courthouse employees to carry firearms in the courthouse.
The Seventh Judicial Circuit had the power, granted by the legislature, to overturn the county’s resolution at any time. Rather than do that, the court took the step of refusing to send judges to Custer.
Pfeifle told the commission he was disappointed in some comments made by members of the commission to the media while the two sides were at loggerheads, saying the court did what it needed to do to “not make this a public spectacle.” He did not indicate specific comments to which he was referring.
Commission chairman Jim Lintz said any interviews he conducted with the media were done so only trying to state the position of the commission, while waiting for feedback from the Supreme Court and dollar figures in terms of what holding court in Pennington County would cost taxpayers.
“If I said something in interviews that indicated bias, I didn’t mean to,” he said.
In terms of costs, Pfeifle said holding court in Pennington County long-term would cost Custer County in terms of some sort of rental charge, although he wasn’t sure as far as exact dollar amounts. State’s attorney Tracy Kelley also discussed possible costs to the county, including overtime, per diem and mileage for the state’s attorney’s office staff, as well as paying mileage for jury pools to travel to and from Rapid City.
In a felony case, Kelley said, around 100 citizens would be called for jury duty, which would cost $2,000 to $2,500, adding that seating a grand jury would likely cost the county around $1,000 for mileage. She also said jurors serving on trials would have to be paid for meals and that if Custer County Sheriff’s Office deputies had to work security it would take them away from patrolling in Custer County.
There are victims of crimes who either can’t or won’t travel to Pennington County, she said, as well as possible jurors who have said they didn’t want to come to Custer County’s courthouse because the public was allowed to carry firearms within it, while also saying they didn’t want to travel to Rapid City for jury duty.
“It’s unfortunate because it puts me in the position of, do I send the sheriff’s office out to arrest those people because they don’t want to serve under these circumstances? Do I penalize them for that?” Kelley asked.
Kelley also warned Custer County cases could fall behind on the docket in Pennington County as cases in that county would likely take priority over Custer County cases.
For his part, Custer County Sheriff Marty Mechaley said the resolution made things more difficult for him and his staff, as it “moves our courtroom from 40 feet away to 40 miles away,” he said.
Hartman reiterated the desire to make a plan for the courthouse on the days there is court, saying he wanted court held in the county.
“I felt like we were going to have a plan to address the important part. You obviously don’t care the days you aren’t here,” Hartman said to the judges. “I wish we could have had that conversation about somewhere in the middle.”
Hartman countered the cost to the county argument by saying the commission doesn’t know what money it could potentially be saving the county, such as prisoner transport to and from the Pennington County Jail.
“I’m tired of people saying it’s going to cost us this money when we don’t have those numbers,” he said.
Pfeifle said the issue wasn’t as nuanced as Hartman was suggesting, saying even if firearms were only allowed in the courthouse on non-court days, the court still has to worry about what could have been left behind and what is accessible to the public.
A handful of residents spoke, mostly in favor of the resolution, with Patrick Baumann  saying the judges started a “political battle” despite saying they didn’t want to, while adding the Second Amendment is “being eroded daily.”
“I still (say) the commissioners have made the correct decision in putting this ordinance into place,” he said. “It’s one small step protecting our freedom that is being eroded daily.”
Romeo Barrera, whose wife works for the clerk of courts, said he thought he was “as far right as they come,” but said he found himself speaking as a moderate for the first time in his life on this subject.
“Pick and choose your battles,” he said, saying he disagrees with allowing firearms in the courthouse for the general public.
Lintz was in favor of rescinding the ordinance, saying if it was just a dollar and cents thing, he would say “have at her.”
“As you’re hearing, it’s not just a dollar and cents amount. We are affecting the livelihood of our public employees for a statement,” he said.
When Brown spoke, he discussed his love for the county and its people, and his desire to serve them at their courthouse.
“This issue has drawn divisions that I haven’t seen frankly, in a long time,” he said. “A lot of those divisions have become quite personal. I find that to be unfortunate.
“As soon as this ordinance is dealt with, I will be back here to serve all of you, and I am looking forward to that opportunity. I want to come back home.”

User login