Freehold moves to devise courtroom security plan

[Freehold Resident]

Freehold moves to devise courtroom security plan
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO
Staff Writer

FREEHOLD - You can't be too careful and a dangerous situation can occur anywhere.

A Borough Council meeting on Sept. 5 saw municipal officials unanimously approve a resolution to establish a municipal court security plan. The council was acting according to a directive from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

According to Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina, the state Supreme Court recently adopted a statewide municipal court security policy in an effort to enhance safety in municipal courts throughout the state. Bellina explained that the policy requires every municipal court in the state to adopt a security plan.

The plan, according to Bellina, was forwarded from state Superior Court Assignment Judge Lawrence Lawson, who sits in Freehold. Municipal courts have been charged to form a municipal court security committee and must be prepared to implement a plan by February 2007. Committee members must be the borough administrator (Bellina), the court administrator (Stacey Kitson), a municipal court judge (Scott Basen) and the chief of police (Chief Michael Beierschmitt or his designee).

The plan submitted to Lawson must include physical perimeter security of the facility and must allow for monitoring access to buildings, including entrances and exits. A device to monitor weapons must be included in the plan, as well as the additional personnel to carry out these items.

Circulation control is also a part of the plan, according to Bellina, meaning there must be appropriate space between a prisoner, the judge, the court staff and members of the public. Overall courtroom security and emergency procedures must also be included in the plan.

According to Bellina, Freehold Borough is one of the first municipalities to get a resolution in place that will allow its representatives to begin the process of crafting the courtroom security plan. He said there will be costs associated with the project and those costs could be significant.

Bellina said he will try to work with state officials to determine if additional fees can be assessed as part of the court costs charged to offenders in an effort to compensate towns for the capital improvements and additional personnel, so that "everyday law-abiding taxpaying citizens do not have to carry the expense."

Bellina said the Supreme Court would rather be "overly cautious in order to circumvent any calamity in local courts because unfortunately, dangerous situations can happen anytime, anywhere."

The borough's municipal court is in the Rug Mill Towers on Jackson Street. Police headquarters are in the same building.

[Marc LeVine]

I voted yes for the plan, mostly because it was a State Supreme Court DIRECTIVE. However, I still think the spirit of this mandate is most likely a kneejerk reaction to what happened in an Atlanta, Georgia Courtroom back in February '05 and, perhaps, because of one or two other isolated situations that have ocurred in, mostly, higher courts and in much larger cities around the country.

Don't get me wrong. Our courtrooms must be kept safe for all involved, but when these general mandates translate into additional tax dollars for our already financially strapped tax payers, we need to EXPECT that significant subsidy funding come from the author of such mandates - in this case, the State of New Jersey. Or, we should DEMAND that the state assist us in finding effective ways for such mandates to pay for themselves, as Mr. Bellina is trying to accomplish in his dialogue with state officials.

I'll reserve any additional judgments and comments on this issue pending the outcome of Mr. Bellina's efforts to try and find revenues that offset the costs of any required security equipment purchases and necessary physical modifications. I'll keep yuo posted.

Marc L