Security Overkill

In going to court every day over the past couple of weeks, I was vexed by the security measures at the federal building. At the main entrance, we had to empty our pockets, have our bags x-rayed, and walk through a metal detector. If we made it beep, we had to be examined with a wand by a security officer, one of three or four on duty in the lobby. Then we had to show ID and have our name, address and phone number written down. Finally, we were issued numbered badges. When we got to the floor where the court was, we had to go through security all over again, this time under the aegis of federal Court Security Officers, four or five of whom appeared to be on duty at all times, doing a whole lot of nothing. Metal detector, x-ray, and wand all over again.

This added a lot of time to getting in and out of court and doubtless represents a large expenditure of tax dollars. On the other hand, I am heartened by the idea that it might reflect a healthy contempt on the part of the public for the federal government. In any event, the federal government, particularly the judiciary, is so fearful of the public that it finds it necessary to screen everyone who has business before it and to deploy a squad of goons to protect itself. This fear is not, I hope, entirely misplaced. Unfortunately, the security measures taken are probably disproportionate to the actual threat.

I reckon the most likely threat to the court is from accomplices of detained criminal defendants who might attempt to liberate their colleagues by force during a court hearing. Such defendants are usually accompanied by law enforcement officers who ought to be able to fend off all but the most organized and well planned of such attempts. Moreover, armed rescue attempts seem to be mighty rare and were extremely rare even when courts had little security besides a somnolent bailiff or two. Accordingly, we ought to be able to dispense with one or both of the screening operations and to make do with one or at most two security officers. Spread out over the whole federal judiciary, this would represent a substantial cost savings and free up thousands of bureaucrats for productive employment. The only downside to these cuts would be a marginally increased risk to court and prosecutorial personnel from what is already a miniscule threat. If these cuts result in a lot of killings or hostage takings, then they could be revisited.