Guns in courthouse resurfaces

A familiar topic came to the fore at the Custer County Commission’s May 12 meeting, as a discussion regarding security at the Custer County Courthouse — and by proxy whether or not firearms should be allowed inside — was held two different times.
The second discussion came after a presentation by Darin Swanston of the U.S. Marshal Service. Swanston, who was flanked by Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judge Craig Pfeifle, went through a report he crafted regarding the safety of the courthouse after touring it with commissioner Mark Hartman and Judge Matt Brown, among others.
After Swanston and Pfeifle left, the report was discussed again, and more specifically, how the report would change if firearms were once again allowed to be carried by the public in the courthouse. The report was filed under the premise firearms were not allowed in the courthouse after the commission rescinded a resolution Jan. 27 allowing the general public to carry in the courthouse. However, the resolution was rescinded with the stipulation it be revisited in six months, which would be the commission’s second meeting in July.
Hartman said he would like to see the issue put on a meeting agenda again in the near future, as he feels the issue is about a citizens’ rights, and if one is given up, it’s not long before more are given up.
“At some point we have to stand up,” he said.
Hartman also pointed out a couple of weeks ago all of the commissioners voted to make Custer County a Second Amendment Sanctuary, “no questions asked.”
“We’re not giving up anything,” said commissioner Travis Bies. “It’s the way it’s always been.”
Commissioner Craig Hindle said he doesn’t want anyone taking away his Second Amendment rights, and the resolution was meant to provide law-abiding citizens a way to protect themselves as opposed to allowing the criminal minded the ability to bring a gun into the courthouse.
“Let’s look at some ways to make it happen where it stays safe,” he said.
Commission chairman Jim Lintz said, when the S.D. Supreme Court aligned with the Seventh Judicial Circuit court judges’ opinion on the resolution (the judges refused to hold court in person in the county courthouse while the resolution was in place). he felt it would take a citizen to take the issue to court.
“They already told us they aren’t on board with it, so I don’t know what the hell you’re going to do to change their mind on that,” he said. “We’ve done what I think we can get done. As far as us doing anything more, I’m not in favor of it.”
The commission originally enacted the firearms resolution last November, which was followed by the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court refusing to hold court at the Custer County Courthouse, citing safety concerns. Pfeifle reiterated it wasn’t just a decision he made arbitrarily, but that all 12 circuit judges came to the decision, which was later affirmed by the S.D. Supreme Court.
The resolution allowed the public to carry firearms into the courthouse, but not possess them in areas used by the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, which includes the courtroom, clerk of courts office, state’s attorney’s office, etc. The circuit court had the authority by statute to override the commission’s resolution at any time, but chose not to do so, instead moving court proceedings to electronic means or at the Pennington County Courthouse.
Complicating matters is that last July a law went into effect that allowed courthouse employees to carry a firearm into the courthouse, but again, not in areas used by the courts.
Swanston, a member of the Marshal Service’s Judicial Security Division, said he is responsible for physical and electronic security in all federal courthouses within the state. Although the Custer County Courthouse is not a federal courthouse, Swanston toured the facility at the behest of the commission to rate its security measures.
“The facility is in very good shape. I would describe it as more advanced than many I’ve seen throughout the state,” he said.
Swanston said many of the things recommended in his report aren’t major enhancements, but are slight additions such as a camera here or a deadbolt there.
“Whoever designed (the courthouse) did so with court functions in mind,” he said.
Hartman said the report shows the extra money and steps the commission took in building the courthouse paid off in terms of a secure facility.
“When we built this building, we relied on architects and different people to put this stuff in the building, hoping we were doing it right,” he said.
Hindle asked Swanston how allowing the general public to carry firearms in the courthouse would affect his report. Swanston said securing a courthouse is all about risk mitigation, pointing out that in federal courthouses firearms aren’t allowed to the public, and in some cases, not even local law enforcement or other federal agencies outside the U.S. Marshal’s Service can bring firearms into the courthouse.
“What they are trying to do is minimize the risk of having so many firearms in the facility and not knowing who has what,” he said. “In my opinion having anyone bring firearms creates a higher risk for the occupants of the facility.”
Swanston said there are documented cases of law enforcement responding to a firearm threat in a courthouse and when they arrive they can’t tell the aggressor from the people attempting to defend themselves or each other.
“You end up getting innocent people shot,” he said. “They are trained to go to the threat. They don’t know who the threat is when shots are being fired or weapons are being used and stuff is going all over the place. It just increases that risk of more people getting hurt.
“What we are trying to do is minimize that risk as much as possible. Nothing on the anti-firearm front. It’s just trying to keep people as safe as possible.”
County resident Keith Glover asked if more court proceedings could be held via video link to “enable more free access” at the county courthouse.
Hartman said Brown had mentioned upgrading telecommunications, etc, in the courtroom to enable more video court hearings because it saves money. Hartman pointed out one of the initial arguments about having court in Rapid City as opposed to Custer was it was going to cost the county more money, which he said didn’t prove to be the case.
Pfeifle said there is indeed movement to use video technology in earlier stages of proceedings, such as arraignments and status hearings, but there is “real constitutional impact” for trials and situations in which there are contested hearings.
“The U.S. Constitution, along with the S.D. Constitution, provides a defendant, for example, the right of confrontation of witnesses,” he said. “We’re never going to get to a point, at least not for the foreseeable future, (where) juries access proceedings remotely. Those always have to be live.”
Pfeifle said, while COVID-19 taught the court how it can do some things different through necessity, contested hearings do not fall into the “can be done remotely” category.
He reiterated the Seventh Circuit is not against firearms, but feels they do not belong in the courthouse.
“There is a time and place for that,” he said. “We are trying to make this facility as safe as it can be for all folks who come in here to do their work. That’s been our position all along. I think (Swanston) reinforces that.”