Trending
Blair residents should not envision that the issue of security at the county's magisterial district courts will be resolved completely anytime soon.
It is a many-faceted challenge centering on a plethora of possibilities needing extensive discussion before they're ultimately prioritized and ruled upon.
However, "not anytime soon" must not drag out to the point of losing some or most of its urgency.
Proceedings at the district courts don't just involve police, defendants, attorneys and the district judge and his or her staff. Victims, siblings, spouses, witnesses and others attend district court sessions and, therefore, also are in harm's way if there is a crack in the proverbial wall of security.
While President Judge Elizabeth Doyle has provided a reasonable explanation of security thinking already in place, it nevertheless is clear that there are some troublesome "holes," based on what she has said, some of which were reported in a Jan. 15-16 Mirror article.
A couple of potentially serious "holes" are evident in this Doyle comment quoted in the Mirror article in question: "Security at those (district court) buildings is provided routinely by physical bulletproof barriers, camera coverage of all public spaces and the presence of law enforcement officers in criminal proceedings."
Camera coverage can't, by itself, bring back into control a situation that gets out of hand. Meanwhile, law enforcement officers devoting their attention to, for example, hearings, because of their involvement with a case, are not focused on identifying potential security lapses.
However, it was at least partially comforting to read Doyle's comment that "any time any magisterial district judge feels they need increased security for any specific event, it is supplied."
That comment displays acknowledgment that there could be room for improvements, which District Attorney Pete Weeks is on record as strongly advocating. Weeks said his security concerns regarding the district judges' offices are centered on properly securing incarcerated defendants and implementing security screening procedures at district court buildings, similar to those in place at the county courthouse.
Weeks described his current requests for security upgrades at the district court buildings, on behalf of the public, defense attorneys and his staff, as remaining pending, which is not surprising, considering budget implications.
But no one should be content with "pending" remaining a locked-in description.
Some older Blair residents might recall a breakdown in security that occurred at the state police barracks in Hollidaysburg in March 1979.
A man charged with attempted murder of a Blair municipal police officer, after being extradited back to this county following his apprehension in North Carolina, escaped from the trooper processing him at the Hollidaysburg barracks, triggering public anxiety over what might happen next.
In November, Blair experienced countywide trauma and sorrow over a magisterial court proceeding gone wrong, an incident resulting in the death of a county prison corrections officer.
Despite precautions in place, a tragic unanticipated happening always is possible in a court setting. The courts need to know how to respond within seconds, not minutes, and have the resources to do so.
The foundation for the right response is a strong security mindset -- something both Doyle and Weeks advocate now and going forward.
The current security debate involving the district courts must continue, actually with stepped-up urgency, based on the times in which we live.