Tulare County Court

Reed explains closing of court to media

As presiding judge of the Tulare County Superior Court, I am writing in response to a recent article [June 29] and opinion [June 30] printed in the Visalia Times-Delta concerning a "DUI Sentencing in the Schools" event held at La Sierra military Academy on June 28.

The newspaper suggests that an explanation from the court is warranted concerning the media's access to the proceedings. The court agrees. The following is a full explanation of the events that led to an unfortunate situation for which the court accepts full responsibility.

The article and opinion state that Judge Gary Johnson ordered the media banned from the proceedings and that in so doing, he violated the Constitution. Judge Johnson did not make any such order.

In accord with state law, what Judge Johnson did was prohibit the proceedings from being videotaped and/or photographed and, as such, ordered all cameras banned from the hearing. This order was communicated by court staff to individuals with the Tulare County Office of Education. Regrettably, in the translation, the event participants believed Judge Johnson banned the media entirely and turned all reporters away.

To be clear, contrary to the newspaper's assertions, the court made no orders that were unconstitutional. A written request to have cameras and/or video recording devices must be submitted and approved prior to any court hearing. At no time was such a request made. Judge Johnson's ban of cameras and video recording was clearly appropriate under the law in this instance.

This incident involved, at most, a miscommunication and one born from the special nature and circumstance of the sentencing hearing. It was an innovative event that was planned at a school auditorium, away from the courthouse, for the purpose of benefiting students.

Some of the participants, such as the Tulare County Office of Education and La Sierra Military Academy school officials, are not familiar with everyday court proceedings. Those involved were trying to do a good thing. They had no ill intentions and simply believed they were carrying out Judge Johnson's orders.

Again, ultimately, the responsibility for the outcome lies with the court, and the court accepts that responsibility. The court has always promoted full and complete public and press access to court hearings unless otherwise prohibited or restricted by law and will continue to do so.

The court believes the students in attendance learned a great deal about the negative consequences of driving while intoxicated and the court will attempt to move forward with additional DUI sentencing events planned for schools in the future.

Tulare County courthouse security tight as airports www ...

Visalia CA March 16 2011 Leaving early to get through airport security has become common for travelers across the globe. As lines grow, it may soon be expected for those heading into Tulare County courthouses.

Nearly 10 years after a state-funded security upgrade, Tulare County courthouses have become more secure, officials say. Metal detectors, cameras and an X-ray machine have made court personnel feel safer, while most of the public has been understanding — until now. Greeted at the courthouse entrance with numerous instructional signs, having to toss their Starbuck’s coffee in the trash and lines at times spanning out the door, some visitors believe security has gotten out of hand. Some said being late for court can be blamed on the entrance. Others said taking off their belt and being checked with a metal-detecting wand makes them feel violated, as others watch. More than 2,000 visitors enter through the doors each day, making the security measures necessary, court officials said. Everyone, except those who have an access key card issued by the county, must take off their belt, surrender their personal items for a trip through the X-ray machine and walk through the metal detector. Knives and cameras are found daily; neither are allowed inside the courthouse. Almost as common are dogs hidden in purses. And there’s even the occasional iguana. Sheriff’s Lt. David Singleton, who oversees about 65 deputies contracted by California’s court administration, says his staff is abiding by state rules and regulations. While the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department enacted the fairly new no-belts-through-the-metal-detector policy, standards are set forth by courts throughout the state. “People can hide lots of things in a belt buckle,” Singleton said. “We do the best we can to ensure the safety of those in the courthouse.”

On Monday, of the 2,167 visitors who passed through the detectors, 1,126 activated the machines’ buzzer and lights, warning deputies of metal found on the person.

“Our main goal is to keep the public, court staff and our judges safe,” said Deanna Jasso, the Tulare County Superior Court’s administrative manager. “We do not single people out or try to embarrass them.” Sheriff’s Lt. David Singleton, who oversees about 65 deputies contracted by California’s court administration, says his staff is abiding by state rules and regulations. While the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department enacted the fairly new no-belts-through-the-metal-detector policy, standards are set forth by courts throughout the state.

The Pacific reporter

California unreported cases, being those determined in the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal of the State of California, but not officially reported, with annotations showing their present value as authority

Reports of cases determined in the Supreme Court of the state of California

the supreme court

New complete digest of the decisions of the Supreme court and the District courts of appeal of the state of California, and of all gederal decisions dealing with California law, covering the cases officially reported in volumes 1 to 167 of the Supreme court reports; volumes 1 to 24 of the District courts of appeal reports; volumes 1 to 5, Coffey's probate decisions; Myrick's probate reports, one volume; volumes 1 to 7, California unreported cases; also all California decisions contained in volumes 1 to 142, page 644, of the Pacific reporter; also all decisions considering and passing on California law in the United States Supreme court reports to volume 230; McAllister's circuit court reports, one volume; Hoffman's district court reports, one volume; volumes 1 to 14, Sawyer's circuit and district court reports, and volumes 1 to 214, Federal reporter