IN RE COURTHOUSE SEC. IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY, 79S00-0109-MF-405.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 79S00-0109-MF-405.,79S00-0109-MF-405. |
| Citation | 765 N.E.2d 1254 |
| Parties | In the Matter of COURTHOUSE SECURITY IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Michael A. Wukmer, Myra C. Selby, Melanie E. Harris, Indianapolis, IN, David W. Luhman, Douglas J. Masson, Lafayette, IN, Attorneys for Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County and the Tippecanoe County Council.
Karl L. Mulvaney, Phil L. Isenbarger, Nana Quay-Smith, Candace L. Sage, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Hon. Ronald E. Melichar.
Stanley C. Fickle, Debra Pollack-Milgate, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Indiana Association of County Commissioners.
Jo Angela Woods, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Association of Indiana Counties, et al.
Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 establishes procedures by which intra-county disagreements about court funding may be resolved. We have also held that the procedures of that rule apply to orders of mandate relating to things other than court funding. See Board of Comm'rs of Crawford County v. Riddle, 493 N.E.2d 461, 462 (Ind.1986)
. In this instance, those procedures have been invoked in a dispute about courthouse security in Tippecanoe County.
The Tippecanoe County Courthouse is used predominantly for court-related functions. Perhaps as many as a thousand people enter and leave the courthouse on a daily basis. Incidents over the past several years have made courthouse security a topic of concern in Tippecanoe County.1 Certain courthouse security measures were implemented by the Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County and the Tippecanoe County Council (collectively, "Commissioners"). However, the Honorable Ronald E. Melichar, Judge of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, disagreed with the adequacy of the Commissioners' plan.
When efforts toward a negotiated settlement of the dispute surrounding courthouse security failed, Judge Melichar issued an order of mandate expressly directing how access to the courthouse should be controlled, including instructions on how many entrances to the courthouse should be kept open and who should be permitted to bypass security.
As provided in Trial Rule 60.5, we appointed a special judge to conduct a trial on the merits of the mandate order. After the trial, the special judge entered a final decree documenting his fact-finding and conclusions. The decree does not become effective until reviewed by the unless that review is waived. Ind. Trial Rule 60.5(B). The Commissioners declined to waive review and in due course the matter was fully briefed before this Court.
The special judge's decree overturned and modified the mandate order in significant part, concluding that some of Judge Melichar's directives exceeded his authority.2 That decree is the subject of our review.
The decree provides that so long as proper security is placed at each open entrance, the number of entrances is a matter for the Commissioners to decide. The decree notes that the county Sheriff is primarily responsible for preserving order in the courthouse. See Ind.Code § 36-2-13-5(a)(6). The decree states that each entrance with public access shall have a metal detector through which persons entering the courthouse shall pass. The decree further notes that it is the responsibility of the Sheriff to supervise his deputies, to determine whether additional security measures should be employed, and to create special rules for the transportation of prisoners and for the screening of governmental employees.
In sum, the special judge's decree directs that metal detectors and security staff be put in place at as many public entrances to the courthouse as the Commissioners think appropriate to keep open. The operation and management of those security points is noted as being the responsibility of the Sheriff. We would expect that the Sheriff would continue to work, as always, with the local judiciary to understand and address their particularized security concerns.
While this case was being briefed, the Commissioners were granted leave to supplement the record with documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In The Matter Of Mandate Of Funds v. The Hon. Peter J. Nemeth
...procedures in that rule apply to orders of mandate relating to things other than court funding. See In the Matter of Courthouse Security in Tippecanoe County, 765 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind.2002) (disagreement over how access to courthouse should be In the Matter of Assignment of Courtrooms, 715 N.E.......
-
E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc.
...exception does not apply where there are no "out-of-the-ordinary ... issues in need of resolution." In re Courthouse Sec. in Tippecanoe Cnty. , 765 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (Ind. 2002) (per curiam). Nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence supporting any given temporary commitment is an out-o......
-
Freeman v. Thompson
...security for the courtroom ...." Williams v. State , 690 N.E.2d 162, 169 n.11 (Ind. 1997) ; see also In re Courthouse Security in Tippecanoe Cnty. , 765 N.E.2d 1254, 1256 (Ind. 2002) ("We would expect that the Sheriff would continue to work, as always, with the local judiciary to understand......