Reference no: EM133267550

Here is a case in point: In the Los Angeles Superior Courts, a case may be called in one of the courtrooms but the judge may decide to order the parties to attempt to settle their differences prior to the case being heard in open court through a settlement conference or mediation. However, in most courthouses, the facilities for such conversations are virtually nonexistent. For example, at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on West Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles, benches in hallways, a vacant jury room, or even a corner table in the cafeteria on the first floor are typical venues for these types of sessions. Although normal security procedures are in effect at the building entrances (e.g., X-ray machines, hand wands, armed L.A. County Sheriff officers, CCTV cameras), courtrooms (e.g., court security officers), and for certain secured areas (e.g., electronic card access, CCTV cameras), officers are not on duty nor are cameras evident in every area where out-of-court meetings may occur. Given that many people who access a courthouse on any given day are angry or disgruntled and possibly have histories of violence, the spilling of court-related proceedings into nonsecure areas of the courthouse may be cause for concern from a security perspective. Yet, funds for expansion in security precautions are often limited and under most budget scenarios, court administrators who oversee facility security must manage this new wrinkle creatively.

What general security goals should be as well as your specific recommendations for addressing these types of situations, especially when limited available funds necessitate a clear prioritization of possible options.