COUNTIES AND COURT FACILITIES

COUNTIES AND COURT FACILITIES County Attorneys Conference February 9, 2008 Michael Crowell UNC School of Government 1. Constitutional and statutory provisions on the division of responsibility for the courts With the adoption of extensive constitutional amendments in 1962 North Carolina moved to a uniform, centrally-governed court system. Since that time the state has been responsible for the operating costs of the courts and the counties have continued to be responsible for court facilities. a. North Carolina Constitution i. Article IV, Section 15: The General Assembly shall provide for an administrative office of the courts to carry out the provisions of this Article. ii. Article IV, Section 20: The operating expenses of the judicial department, other than compensation to process servers and other locally paid nonjudicial officers, shall be paid from State funds. iii. Article VII, Section 1: The General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable. b. General Statutes General funding scheme i. GS 7A-300 provides: The operating expenses of the Judicial Department shall be paid from State funds, out of appropriations for this purpose made by the General Assembly, or from funds provided by local governments pursuant to GS 153A-212.1 and GS 160A-289.1. The section then goes on to list items to be included in such operating expenses, such as salaries, travel expenses, jurors and witnesses fees, compensation for court reporters, and costs of transcripts and printing of briefs and related expenses for indigents. 1

ii. GS 7A-302 provides that the county shall be responsible for providing courtrooms, office space for juvenile court counselors and support staff... and related judicial facilities (including furniture), as defined in this Subchapter.... With approval of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), after consulting with local authorities, courtrooms and related facilities may be provided by a municipality. The court facility fee collected by the AOC is to be provided to the county or municipality providing the facility. iii. Effective July 1, 2008, the requirement of GS 7A-302 is rewritten to declare that the county is responsible for providing courtrooms, office space for juvenile court counselors and support staff... and related judicial facilities (including furniture, properly functioning telephones that meet the specifications for Administrative Office of the Courts telephones, and the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support those telephones), as defined in this Subchapter.... c. General Statutes Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) responsibilities i. GS 7A-343 makes the director of the AOC responsible for preparing and submitting the judicial budget to the General Assembly and for administering the enacted budget. The AOC director is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the chief justice (GS 7A-341). ii. GS 7A-343(5) includes in the duties of the director of the AOC: Investigate, make recommendations concerning, and assist in the securing of adequate physical accommodations for the General Court of Justice. d. General Statutes Facilities fees i. GS 7A-304(A)(2) includes in court costs in criminal cases a $12 facilities fee for district court and a $30 facilities fee for superior court, to be collected upon conviction or plea of guilty or nolo contendere and to be remitted to the county or city providing the facility. These funds are to be used exclusively for purposes listed in the statute, which are: (1) Courtrooms (2) Space and furniture for judges (3) Space and furniture for district attorneys (4) Space and furniture for Indigent Defense Services (5) Space and furniture for magistrates (6) Space and furniture for juries (7) Space and furniture for other court related personnel (8) Office space, furniture and vaults for clerk of court (9) Jail and juvenile detention facilities 2

(10) Free parking for jurors (11) Law library (12) If the funds exceed the needs for the above, they may be spent, with the approval of the AOC, to retire indebtedness for court facility construction, or to reimburse the local government for construction or to supplement the operations of the General Court of Justice in the county. ii. GS 7A-305(a)(1) includes in court costs for civil actions a $12 facilities fee for cases heard by a magistrate and a $16 facilities fee for cases heard by a district or superior court judge, to be remitted to the county or city providing the facility and subject to the same restrictions as the fee collected in criminal cases. e. General Statutes Additional local support i. GS 153A-212.1 allows county to appropriate funds under state contract to provide services for speedy disposition of cases involving drug offenses, domestic violence or other offenses involving threats to public safety. Authority is subject to provisions in Chapter 7A (see below). ii. GS 160A-289.1 is an identical statute for cities. iii. GS 7A-44.1 allows the use of county or city funds for secretaries for superior court judges for the purposes provided in GS 153A-212.1 and 160A-289.1 (i.e., only as related to the speedy disposition of cases involving drug offenses, domestic violence or other offenses involving threats to public safety). The assistance is to be provided by contract between the local government and the AOC. The AOC may approve the assistance only upon a showing by the senior resident superior court judge that the overwhelming public interest warrants the use of the additional judicial secretaries for the purposes specified in the statute. iv. GS 7A-64 allows the use of county or city funds for temporary assistant district attorneys for the purposes provided in GS 153A-212.1 and 160A- 289.1. The assistance is to be provided by contract between the local government and the AOC. The AOC may approve the assistance only upon a showing by the district attorney that the present staff cannot handle the current criminal docket and that the overwhelming public interest warrants the use of the additional assistant district attorneys. v. GS 7A-102(e) allows the use of county or city funds for additional assistant and deputy clerks and other employees of the clerk of court s office, for the purposes provided in GS 153A-212.1 and 160A-289.1. The assistance is to be provided by contract between the local government and the AOC. The 3

AOC may approve the assistance only upon a showing by the senior resident superior court judge that the overwhelming public interest warrants the use of the additional personnel. vi. GS 7A-498.7 (i) allows the use of county or city funds for temporary assistant public defenders for the purposes provided in GS 153A-212.l and 160A- 289.1. The assistance is to be provided by contract between the local government and the AOC. The AOC may approve the assistance only upon a showing by the public defender that the overwhelming public interest warrants the use of the additional assistant public defenders. f. General Statutes Sheriff s responsibilities i. GS 17E-1 declares that the sheriff is the only officer who is also responsible for the courts of the State, and acting as their bailiff and marshall. By common law and this provision the sheriff is responsible for court security. The sheriff s office is funded by the county. ii. The sheriff also is responsible for executing process (GS 162-14) and for the care and custody of the county jail (GS 162-22). g. General Statutes Responsibilities of senior resident superior court judge and chief district judge i. GS 7A-41.1 provides that the senior resident superior court judge in the judicial district is responsible for all duties which are not related to a case, controversy or judicial proceeding and which do not involve the exercise of judicial power.... ii. GS 7A-146 lists the powers and duties of the chief district judge and states that the chief district judge has administrative supervision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in the district. 2. Inherent authority of courts to address inadequate facilities The North Carolina Supreme Court addressed the issue of the court s inherent authority to deal with the adequacy of facilities in In re Alamance County Court Facilities, 329 NC 84 (1991). a. The sequence of events and trial court order: i. In 1989 superior court judge Henry W. Hight, Jr., ordered the grand jury to inspect the jail and court facilities. The grand jury reported numerous courthouse and jail defects and recommends that the 1924 courthouse be remodeled and converted to other uses and that a new courthouse be built. 4

ii. Judge Hight scheduled a hearing, appointed an attorney to represent the court, and ordered notice sent to the county commissioners, then later subpoenaed the commissioners. iii. The commissioners were present at the hearing but do not participate. iv. Judge Hight entered an order finding that the courtrooms and related judicial offices were grossly inadequate, being in the large either obsolete, poorly designed, or nonexistent. He found that the inadequacies denied access to the disabled, thwarted the effective assistance of counsel, jeopardized the right to trial by jury, caused delay in processing cases, and that a clear and present danger existed from lack of detention rooms. v. Judge Hight directed that the county provide adequate facilities, specifying the number of courtrooms, grand jury room, attorney-client rooms, detention rooms; the square footage; the number of restrooms, etc. He ordered the county commissioners to respond in writing within 30 days as to how they intended to comply. b. Supreme Court decision: i. The court recognized the inherent authority of the judiciary to assure that it has adequate facilities to carry out its mission as a coequal, independent branch of government: We hold that when inaction by those exercising legislative authority threatens fiscally to undermine the integrity of the judiciary, a court may invoke its inherent power to do what is reasonably necessary for the orderly and efficient exercise of the administration of justice. Beard v. N.C. State Bar, 320 N.C. at 129, 357 S.E.2d at 696. Article V prohibits the judiciary from taking public monies without statutory authorization. But our statutes obligate counties and cities to provide physical facilities for the judicial system within their boundaries. N.C.G.S. 7A-300(a)(1) (1989); N.C.G.S. 7A-302 (1989). These facilities must be adequate to serve the functioning of the judiciary within the borders of those political subdivisions. Such adequacy necessarily includes safeguarding the constitutional rights of parties and ascertaining that parties statutory rights such as handicap access are similarly protected. Although the statutes do not expressly pass the duty of providing adequate judicial facilities to the court in case of default of local authorities, the court has the inherent authority to direct local authorities to perform that duty. 329 NC at 99. 5

ii. The court also decided, however, that in addressing facility needs, the court should avoid ex parte orders and specific directions as to the improvements to be made, and instead should offer the responsible officials an opportunity to correct the problem on their own. Just as the inherent power of the judiciary is plenary within its branch, it is curtailed by the constitutional definition of the judicial branch and the other branches of government. 329 NC at 94. A more reasonable, less intrusive procedure would have been for the court, in the exercise of its inherent power, to summon the commissioners under an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, which order would call attention to their statutory duty and their apparent failure to perform that duty. If after hearing it was determined that the commissioners had indeed failed to perform their duty, as the court determined in the case before us, the court could order the commissioners to respond with a plan perhaps in consultation with such judicial personnel as the senior resident superior court judge, the chief district judge, the district attorney, the clerk, or other judicial officials with administrative authority to submit to the court within a reasonable time. Such a directive would be a judicious use of the court s inherent power without either seizing the unexercised discretion of a political subdivision of the legislative branch or obtruding into the constitutional hegemony of that branch. 329 NC at 106-107. c. Lessons from the Alamance County case: i. Counties are obligated by law to provide adequate facilities. ii. Adequate facilities are necessary for the court to be able to carry out its functions as a coequal branch of government. iii. A court has inherent authority to require the county to meet its obligation. iv. The court should not attempt to determine and specify the exact nature of the facilities to be provided; doing so interferes with the legislative branch s authority as a coequal branch of government. v. The court cannot order that money be appropriated or expended. vi. County commissioners should be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any order is entered. vii. The court may order the county to present a plan for providing adequate facilities. 6

viii. A court may issue mandamus to county commissioners to perform their duty to provide adequate facilities; failure to comply with mandamus would be subject to the sanctions that normally apply to such an order, including contempt. d. The related Ragan case A second lawsuit had been brought in Alamance County by various individuals seeking mandamus to order the county commissioners to make specified improvements to the courthouse. The Court of Appeals dismissed the action in Ragan v. County of Alamance, 98 NC App 636 (1990), holding that mandamus was not available for such purpose because it may be used only to force a public official to perform a plain duty, it may not be used to instruct an official how to exercise a discretionary duty. After deciding In re Alamance County Court Facilities, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in Ragan v. County of Alamance, 330 NC 110 (1991), noting that it had decided in the earlier case that a superior court has the inherent power to issue a writ of mandamus to the County Commissioners requiring them to provide adequate court facilities. The court also held that sovereign immunity did not bar the citizens lawsuit. 3. Facilities fees The facilities fees collected by the courts and paid to local governments amounted to $20,598,555 in fiscal year 2006-07. a. The counties receiving the largest amounts were: i. Mecklenburg $2,096,289 ii. Wake $1,893,798 iii. Guilford $1,248,225 iv. Forsyth $930,335 v. Durham $529,597 b. The counties receiving the smallest amounts were: i. Graham $17,266 ii. Alleghany $17,423 iii. Pamlico $20,779 iv. Yancey $21,831 v. Clay $23,560 c. Counties are supposed to submit annual reports to the AOC on the expenditures made on court facilities, but many counties do not and the reports are not uniform. 7

4. Standards for facilities a. Neither the AOC nor any other agency has set standards for the design and construction of court facilities. Counties interested in such standards are referred to The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities published by the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia. The first edition was published in 1991 and the second in 1998. The first edition is available online at the National Center s website, ncsconline.org. b. The most recent comprehensive survey of court facilities in North Carolina is 100 Courthouses, A Report on North Carolina Judicial Facilities, a report by the NC State University School of Design for the AOC, published in 1978. The report consists of two volumes. The first volume is an overview of the court system in the state and the historical role of courthouses, and it includes detailed recommendations for design. The second volume is a detailed, county-by-county assessment of the current condition of the courthouse in each county, with an itemized list of recommended actions. c. In September 1998 the AOC published North Carolina Court Security Guidelines, discussed below. The guidelines include various items related to building design and construction. The guidelines are discussed further below. 5. Court security Courthouse security is an important current topic. Many criminal defendants are dangerous; disgruntled litigants can become threatening; high profile trials may require crowd control; and after the Oklahoma City courthouse bombing and 9/11 all court facilities need to be conscious of terrorist attacks. a. Responsibility for courthouse security: i. As discussed above, the county sheriff has primary responsibility for court security. The sheriff provides bailiffs and other personnel. Through the budget process the board of county commissioners largely determines the number of personnel the sheriff may devote to these services and the equipment they have available. The sheriff also is responsible for the jail and transporting prisoners to and from the courts. ii. Whether security equipment is part of county s responsibility to provide adequate facilities depends on factors such as whether the equipment is permanently installed (e.g., a metal detector) and whether it is for general building security (e.g., cameras monitoring the parking lot) rather than just for the courts. Even if equipment is not the county s responsibility, though, it may be the sheriff s responsibility as part of the sheriff s duty to provide security. iii. For single, high-profile trials requiring additional security, the responsibility may be negotiated between the AOC, county and sheriff. iv. Building design and layout are important considerations in security. 8

b. AOC Guidelines i. The 1998 report, North Carolina Court Security Guidelines, published by the AOC, was prepared by the Court Security Advisory Committee which included court officials, county commissioners and sheriffs. The report reviews responsibilities for court security and makes a number of specific recommendations on security screening, weapons, duress alarms, building access control and the like. ii. The guidelines include security screening at all courthouse entrances, a ban on anyone other than an on-duty officer having a weapon, duress alarms for all courtrooms and judges chambers, and control of building access through video surveillance and intrusion detection systems. iii. The guidelines do not include specific items of building construction and design but note the importance of security considerations in any renovation or new building construction. The guidelines recommend that the county obtain expert assistance. iv. The guidelines are voluntary. c. Court authority to deal with security concerns i. GS 15A-1034 authorizes a presiding judge to impose reasonable restrictions on courtroom access to ensure the orderliness of proceedings and the safety of participants. The same statute says the judge may order searches of persons and possessions for weapons and other devices that could be used to disrupt or impede proceedings. For example, the judge might order the posting of a sign saying: Do not enter courtroom unless you have business in here. All persons entering or opening courtroom doors will be searched for weapons. State v. Lemons, 348 NC 335 (1998), judgment vacated on other grounds, 527 US 1018 (1998). ii. GS 15A-1031, -1032 and -1033 also authorize a trial judge to order the restraint of disruptive witnesses and defendants, removal of a disruptive defendants, and removal of disruptive witnesses and spectators. In appropriate circumstances, for example, a defendant may be shackled without violating the defendant s right to a fair trial; factors to be considered by the court include the size of the courtroom, nature of the offense, number of security personnel available and the mood of the audience. State v. Billups, 301 NC 607 (1981); State v. Tolley, 290 NC 349 (1976). iii. GS 15A-1035 also acknowledges the trial judge s inherent authority over the control of the trial and the courtroom. [T]rial judges have board power to take whatever legitimate steps are necessary to maintain proper decorum and appropriate atmosphere in the courtroom during a trial. State v. Dickerson, 9 9

NC App 387, 391 (1970). It was not considered unduly prejudicial to defendants in a high-profile murder case for the judge to allow armed prison guards to accompany inmate witnesses and to allow armed officers to be in and around the courthouse and in the presence of the jury. State v. Spaulding, 288 NC 397 (1975), vacated on other grounds, 428 US 904 (1976). iv. In re Alamance County Court Facilities supports the authority of a courtroom to order improvements in facilities when necessary for adequate security. d. County protection from liability In Wood v. Guilford County, 355 NC 161 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the public duty doctrine insulated Guilford County from liability for injuries sustained by an AOC employee working at the courthouse when the private security company hired by the county failed to protect her from assault. The court s holdings included: i. The county was not required by law to provide security for the courthouse; the law only requires the county to provide the facility. ii. Because the county was not required to provide security, it was not conducting the state s business and not acting as an agent of the state in doing so. Therefore, the injured AOC employee s claim was not required to go to the Industrial Commission under the Workers Compensation Act. iii. The public duty doctrine applies to a county providing security at the courthouse. The protective services provided at the courthouse were intended to benefit the public at large, including those who work at the courthouse, just as municipal police services are intended to benefit the public at large. iv. Under the public duty doctrine, a governmental unit cannot be held liable for the failure of police to protect a member of the general public. v. One exception to the public duty doctrine, allowing governmental liability, is when a special duty exists to protect a particular individual. The county owed no greater duty to AOC employees working at the courthouse than to anyone else, however. e. Sheriffs Association Courthouse Security Project i. The North Carolina Sheriffs Association has initiated a three-year Courthouse Security Project, to run from 2008 through 2010, and has employed consultants to assist individual sheriffs offices by assessing their courthouse security and recommending and assisting with implementing improvements. 10

ii. Part of the project will be evaluating whether additional bailiff training is needed and, if so, identifying personnel and a method for delivering the training. iii. The project also anticipates designing and publishing model security procedures. 6. Some other current issues a. The aging of facilities in many counties b. Continued court growth and the need for additional space c. Access for disabled d. The ongoing facilities/equipment debate, especially the 2007 revision to GS 7A- 302 requiring counties to provide telephones meeting AOC specifications. 7. Some current activities related to court facilities a. North Carolina Rural Courts Commission i. The commission was stablished by the chief justice in January 2006 with 15 members including superior and district court judges, clerks of court, trial court administrators, legislators and a district attorney. ii. The commission has been active, visiting a set of rural counties every quarter, meeting with local officials, reviewing facilities and recommending improvements. iii. The commission s approach is to bring together all interested parties and facilitate discussions of county s needs and help develop a plan for accomplishing the goals. iv. The commission also advocates for changes in state law, financing, etc., needed to assist rural counties in providing adequate court facilities. b. North Carolina Bar Association Administration of Justice Committee i. The Administration of Justice Committee is a longstanding committee of the Bar Association that addresses and helps form the association s position on a number of issues related to court administration, including election of judges, financial support for the courts and the like. 11

ii. Committee members have been meeting with members of the Rural Courts Commission and representatives of the Sheriffs Association and the Association of County Commissioners to discuss questions of court security, which necessarily involves discussion about court facilities. ATTACHMENTS: Facility Fees Paid to Each County July 1, 2006 June 30, 2007 Excerpt from Chapter 3, Specific Courthouse Design Components, from The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide, National Center for State Courts (1991) Excerpt, Transylvania County, from 100 Courthouses, A Report on North Carolina Judicial Facilities, NC State School of Design and NC Administrative Office of the Courts (1978) Excerpt, Recommendations of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission for Transylvania County, 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 12

Facility Fees Paid to Each County July 1, 2006---June 30, 2007 County Facility Fees Paid Alamance 302,509 Alexander 42,426 Alleghany 17,423 Anson 68,119 Ashe 35,444 Avery 29,652 Beaufort 143,887 Bertie 66,001 Bladen 95,525 Brunswick 224,728 Buncombe 382,847 Burke 199,782 Cabarrus 463,730 Caldwell 151,407 Camden 26,609 Carteret 221,075 Caswell 56,162 Catawba 209,651 Chatham 77,432 Cherokee 62,695 Chowan 28,934 Clay 23,560 Cleveland 217,728 Columbus 127,817 Craven 235,764 Cumberland 429,098 Currituck 101,035 Dare 221,644 Davidson 276,802 Davie 69,779 Duplin 204,554 Durham 529,597 Edgecombe 122,342 Forsyth 930,335 Franklin 128,219 Gaston 452,415 Gates 27,694 Graham 17,266 Granville 113,306 Greene 45,598 Guilford 1,248,225 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 58

Halifax 149,553 Harnett 139,378 Haywood 164,076 Henderson 183,433 Hertford 64,622 Hoke 68,974 Hyde 14,653 Iredell 315,675 Jackson 69,278 Johnston 330,529 Jones 34,067 Lee 96,374 Lenoir 193,978 Lincoln 133,740 Macon 70,464 Madison 54,104 Martin 99,884 McDowell 129,220 Mecklenburg 2,096,289 Mitchell 23,887 Montgomery 77,724 Moore 267,413 Nash 176,298 New Hanover 430,345 Northampton 41,337 Onslow 388,062 Orange 195,793 Pamlico 20,779 Pasquotank 78,356 Pender 122,905 Perquimans 31,207 Person 80,789 Pitt 343,278 Polk 49,363 Randolph 317,393 Richmond 120,089 Robeson 196,580 Rockingham 197,905 Rowan 319,221 Rutherford 172,864 Sampson 199,404 Scotland 86,492 Stanly 165,649 Stokes 86,734 Surry 177,074 Swain 35,748 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 59

Transylvania 53,157 Tyrrell 50,054 Union 259,100 Vance 163,719 Wake 1,893,798 Warren 63,664 Washington 36,638 Watauga 121,796 Wayne 232,083 Wilkes 154,858 Wilson 209,191 Yadkin 98,873 Yancey 21,831 State Totals 20,598,555 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 60

Recommendations of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission for Transylvania County Current Conditions The Commission (RCC) wishes to thank Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Mark E. Powell; Transylvania County Commission Chairman Jason Chappell; County Commissioner David Guice; County Commissioner Lynn Bullock; County Commissioner Daryle Hogsed; Clerk to the County Board of Commissioners Trish McLeod; Transylvania County Manager Artie Wilson; Clerk of Superior Court Rita K. Ashe; Transylvania County Bar Association President Michael Eubanks; Sheriff David Mahoney; Register of Deeds Cindy M. Ownbey; Tax Assessor/Collector David Reid; Chief Deputy Eddie Gunter; Jail Lieutenant Mike Carpenter; Executive Director of SAFE Salley Stepp; Assistant District Attorney Doug Mundy; County Attorney Jeanne Hall; Attorney Curtis Potter; County Emergency Manager David McNeill; Architect Richard Worley; County Project Manager Larry Reece; Reporter Kate Herold; Reporter Jon Rich; and Reporter Sherrill Barber for sharing their valuable time with us on August 17. We particularly thank you all for the thought you each put into your communications with us and for the excellent way in which our meeting with you was organized. We also wish to thank the Transylvania Board of Commissioners for the delicious food you provided at our meeting and for lunch. The lunch break was most enjoyable. Artie Wilson and Trish McLeod have our special appreciation for their hard work. The courthouse is an example of Victorian architecture from the late Nineteenth Century with Italianate influences and an appropriately conservative outward appearance. The original part of the building has two floors as does the old jail which has been converted to office use. These two portions of the courthouse are joined as a split level which inhibits use by those who are physically handicapped. A modern portion includes an elevator which ameliorates part of the access difficulties of the physically disabled. The large courtroom provides adequate seating for either Superior or District Court sessions but is limited as to access for those who are physically disabled. The Bench, jury box, and witness stand are all elevated at least one step and access through the Bar is tight. The second courtroom on the first level of the lower floor is quite small and adequate only for non-jury sessions with limited dockets of cases. Public seating is 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 45

limited to less than forty persons. Handicapped access is better than the larger courtroom but not complete. Due to the configuration of the large courtroom people inside the courthouse enter the courtroom to the side of the Bench which is distracting to the Judge and jurors if a jury is empanelled. It also creates a potential security problem because these people cannot be seen until they enter the courtroom. There is no holding cell for either courtroom. Prisoners are brought from the jail in small groups through public hallways and seated in the jury box or along the wall until their cases are called. This is a dangerous practice as prisoners can easily assault members of the public or be assaulted by them. Contraband, including drugs and weapons, may be passed when prisoners are being moved through public hallways. The courthouse is shared by judicial and non-judicial functions. The County Tax Assessor and Collector and the Register of Deeds each have offices on the first level of the original courthouse. Residents using their offices periodically encounter fights between and among persons in the courthouse for court purposes. Both these offices have filled their available space and have no room for future growth. The District Attorney, Clerk of Superior Court and other court agencies are also located in the courthouse. The Clerk of Superior Court is located on the first floor and the District Attorney on the second. Both these offices are full with no growth space for records or staff. Room for private meetings between attorneys and clients and between court officials and members of the public and defendants is severely limited. In addition, Transylvania County will be served by a Public Defender beginning January 2008. There is no room in the courthouse for the Public Defender and staff. The present courthouse has no jury pool room and because of the interior arrangement of stairwells and hallways jury members, both those selected to serve on juries and those in the larger pool who have been summonsed to serve must mix in the public areas with victims, witnesses, relatives of parties and defendants who are in custody and those out on bond. This is a dangerous situation as well as one that potentially exposes jurors to evidence not admissible in court and threats from trial participants. Such mingling has resulted in mistrials of serious felony cases in other counties. The courthouse lacks external security. There are no metal detectors and no single point of entrance through which the public could pass and be screened. The Sheriff and County Manager are presently working to address this very dangerous situation by establishing a single point of entrance equipped with a metal detector and an x-ray machine. This change will involve having the public enter from the side rather than the front door and converting the front door to an exit. The County has begun construction to effectuate this change which also includes educating the public. Internal security is provided by panic buttons in the courtrooms and individual agency offices. County and Court officials testify that response is rapid when a panic button is pressed. This is a good system and probably well known to troublemakers who frequent 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 46

the building. The hallways are less well protected except when law enforcement officers are present for court or other official duties. Several courthouse officials indicated fights were a frequent occurrence in the building. Hallway fights should be reduced once cameras are installed as planned. The Sheriff has a good plan to install cameras viewing eight areas with monitoring by retired officer volunteers. Parking is at a premium in the courthouse area. All available space is used for this purpose. This does create another potential security hazard if someone had a bomb in a vehicle as happened in Oklahoma City in April 1995. The Sheriff should consider installing a security camera overlooking the parking lot due to the proximity of a public park which has attracted convicted sex offenders in the past. With ideal conditions parking should be a safe distance from the courthouse for security and noise reasons. Spanish language interpretation is provided by locally available Spanish speakers including a member of the District Attorney s staff. No state certified Spanish language interpreters reside in Transylvania County. There is a growing population of residents who speak Spanish as a first language in the county and the need for qualified interpreters is an increasing challenge. Recommendations The RCC congratulates the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners for their leadership in addressing the challenges noted above. Sheriff Mahoney and County Manager Wilson in particular have provided excellent leadership as well. Indeed, County and Court officials of Transylvania County have all exhibited wonderful cooperation in working to address their shared challenges. The Transylvania County Courthouse has served the people of Transylvania County well for many decades but it has simply been outgrown. As more people come across the forest to live in the county they will bring more business to the courthouse. Property records fill the Register of Deeds rooms, more tax records are created and more civil and criminal cases are filed. These increases of records take up space not now available and bring with them the need for additional staff to serve county residents. The courthouse was built at a time when security needs were much less than we now face. The building design does not lend itself to modern security applications such as a single point of entrance or to the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Transylvania County Board of Commissioners with the leadership of Chairman Jason Chappell has recognized the necessity of addressing these challenges. The RCC has some recommendations for near term application as well as longer term considerations. For the short term the RCC recommends: * Installation of a metal detector at a single point of entrance for the courthouse. This is already being implemented and is required for public safety in the facility. 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 47

* Consider use of internet based legal reference services for the law library. These services are available at a fraction of the cost of hard copy subscriptions and take up only a fraction of the space required to store books. The Facilities and Security Committee should consider this recommendation and if to relocate the law library to smaller quarters. * Consideration by the Facilities and Security Committee of improving security at the entrance to the larger courtroom next to the Bench. This could be through assigning a bailiff to control this door when court is in session, installation of a peephole or some other means. * All bailiff s should be sworn officers and have training as bailiffs. * Plans should be made to make the large courtroom ADA compliant for those who are physically handicapped. This will require attention to the elevated jury box, witness stand, clerk s work station and Bench. Consideration could also be given to reversing the layout of the larger courtroom so that the Bench is at the end opposite from where it is now. The cost of a reversal may be such that it would not be feasible. Short and long term cost issues are discussed further below. * Consideration by the Facilities and Security Committee of installing a wall across the second floor hallway to reduce traffic behind the larger courtroom. This wall should be located such that it does not interfere with access from the elevator. * Consideration should be given to installing screens on windows which face second floor windows in nearby buildings. * Consider construction of a vehicular sally port and walk way across the roof of the present County Office Building to bring prisoners from the jail to the courthouse. This would greatly reduce the commingling problem. It is especially important to ensure that jurors do not see in-custody inmates. * Request the U. S. Marshal s Service to perform a security evaluation of the Courthouse and make recommendations. * The RCC recommends that emergency courthouse evacuation plans be developed and rehearsal drills conducted. Judges assigned to hold court in the county should be provided copies of these plans and shown where they are to go in case of emergency. * The RCC recommends adoption of local certification of interpreters to ensure acceptable qualifications. The Ninth District plan is recommended as a model. Commission Member Ella Wrenn will be glad to provide a copy of this plan and to answer any questions regarding implementation. * Assign a bailiff to escort Clerk of Superior Court and County Financial staff to the bank when deposits are made. * Consider relocation of non-court agency to another building to provide space for Public Defender s Office which will require a reception area, conference room and at least one attorney office. Transylvania County has begun making long range plans for responding to courthouse needs. The first of these is construction of a new jail and law enforcement offices for the Sheriff s Department at a tract of land several miles from the present courthouse. The RCC recommends that this facility include a courtroom which can be used for first appearances and other hearings to greatly reduce the number of prisoners who must be transported to the courthouse. This will save money for the Sheriff and improve security. This courtroom should be equipped for use of video appearances so that Judges can hear 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 48

matters involving prisoners without having to leave the courthouse. A Judge could recess an ongoing trial or hearing to conduct an emergency video hearing for someone in the jail. This could also be done by a Judge holding court in another county if that county has video equipment installed. The RCC recommends that Transylvania County officials consider establishing a timeline for construction of new or additional courthouse facilities to include what use is to be made of the existing courthouse. Consideration should also be made as to location of a new courthouse if that choice is made. Significant savings and security benefits can be realized by locating a new courthouse facility adjacent to the new Public Safety Center. We suggest that the shorter the time between construction of the new Public Safety Center and construction of new courthouse facilities the less Transylvania County should spend on interim measures such as building a courtroom in the present County Office Building. Creative docket management such as splitting daily calendars can enable the courts to function short term with current facilities. Should the County decide that new courthouse facilities are more than five years in the future we recommend relocating the Register of Deeds and Tax Assessor/Collector offices to another building to provide them adequate space and allow for sufficient space for court offices in the original courthouse? In this situation construction of a courtroom in the present County Office Building should be considered. The RCC suggests that construction of new courthouse facilities would enable Transylvania County to respond to security, space and ADA accessibility challenges more completely, more satisfactorily and more economically than attempting to retrofit the old courthouse. We congratulate you on recognizing the serious challenges you face and for the start you have made in addressing these challenges. In our opinion your hard work will provide your residents with the services and security they deserve. Please call upon any or all of us if we can be of any assistance as you move forward. 2007 Annual Report of the North Carolina Rural Courts Commission 49