What devices should be allowed in court? Kansas, Illinois go different ways.

Robinson, Eric P.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

While almost all state trial courts allow some level of still and video camera coverage of court proceedings, the rules on usage of modern communications devices and techniques--blogging, tweeting, texting and emailing using cellphones, tablets and other devices--are a wild patchwork of policies which vary from state to state, courthouse to courthouse, and often even courtroom to courtroom.

An example of this is in two wildly diverging policies adopted in late 2012 in Kansas and Illinois' Cook County. In mid-October, the Kansas Supreme Court amended the state's courts rules to explicitly permit tweeting and texting from courtrooms, becoming one of only a handful of states that explicitly allow such coverage of their courts. In mid-December, meanwhile, Cook County chief judge Timothy Evans issued an order barring devices "capable of connecting to the Internet or making audio or video recordings" from all of the county's courthouses where criminal matters are heard, effective Jan. 15.

Kansas lets devices in

The amendments to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 1001 start by allowing possession of cell phones and other electronic devices in courtrooms, but prohibit their use to make phone calls, or to record or transmit data, video or audio. Such devices may be used in other areas of courthouses--not courtrooms--for calls and text messaging only.

But the amended rule then allows for judges to permit such recordings and transmissions, and it sets out parameters for such activity. These include a requirement that requests be made at least a week in advance, and it sets prohibitions on recording attorney and bench conferences, jurors and courtroom participants who request not to be covered.

Despite these restrictions--many of which existed in the rule before the revision--the intent of the change is to better facilitate coverage of courts by new electronic media. This is evidenced by the rule's new preface, which states that "policies developed to address the court's concerns should include enough flexibility to take into consideration that electronic devices have become a necessary tool for court observers, journalists and participants, and continue to rapidly change and evolve. The courts should champion the enhanced access and the transparency made possible by use of these devices while protecting the integrity of proceedings within the courtroom."

Before the revision, the rule allowed photography or broadcast of court proceedings only by the news media, and only with permission of the presiding judge. Nevertheless, a few judges in the state did allow tweeting and texting. For example, former Wichita (Kansas) Eagle staff writer for interactive news Ron Sylvester frequently blogged from the courts on his "What the Judge Ate for Breakfast" blog.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Cook County ban

While Kansas courts were welcoming electronic devices, most of Cook County's criminal courthouses banned the public from bringing in electronic devices as of Jan. 15, under an order issued by Evans in mid-December.

In a press release announcing the new policy, Evans cited concerns that people attending court proceedings were using cell phones to photograph--and intimidate--witnesses, judges, jurors and prospective jurors, to relay courtroom testimony to upcoming witnesses and to stream judges' comments during trial.

"The court is sending a strong message to gang members and others that any attempts to intimidate witnesses, jurors, and judges in court will not be permitted," Evans was quoted as saying in the release. "The ban will help to ensure that justice is properly done by preserving the integrity of testimony and maintaining court decorum."

The ban applies to 12 of the 13 courthouses in county. The exception is the Richard J. Daley Center Courthouse in Chicago, which handles civil, traffic and misdemeanor cases.

Under the order, members of the news media are exempt from the ban and will be able to use electronic devices in courtrooms under the circuit court's pending application to participate in the extended media coverage experiment authorized by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Others exempt from the ban include current or former judges; licensed attorneys; all law enforcement officers; all government employees; persons reporting for jury service; jurors (subject to the authority of the trial judges); building and maintenance workers; and equipment repair persons and vendors.

But their use of the devices will be limited to public areas of the courthouses.

Individual judges also can issue orders allowing others to bring electronic devices into the courthouse, and they also can opt to allow the devices to be used in their courtrooms.

Other courts vary

Besides Sylvester in Wichita, other journalists who have tweeted and blogged from courtrooms include Trish Mehaffey of the Cedar Rapids Gazette; Ben Sheffner of the Copyrights & Campaigns blog; and Henry Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle.

According to the Digital Media Law Project at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, state court judges in California, Colorado and Michigan have permitted tweeting or blogging from their courtrooms. And while Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bars such live coverage from federal courts, individual federal judges in the southern district of Florida, northern district of Iowa, district of Kansas, eastern district of Pennsylvania, district court for the District of Columbia and the district of Massachusetts have allowed it in some cases.