Solving Our Local Public Safety Crisis:
Recent Lessons From Atlanta, Chicago,
and Indianapolis
Criminal Justice Planning Council - March 2005
The Campaign For A Safe And Adequate Justice Center
Indianapolis Bar Association/Marion County Bar Association
Justice Center Task Force
John Kautzman & John Maley
Today’s Goals



Discuss The History and Nature of the
Current Public Safety Crisis Within Marion
County’s Justice System
Suggest Short-Term and
Long-Term Solutions
Propose Immediate Action Steps to Move
Forward Without Delay
Our Perspective






We represent nearly 5,000 local legal professionals,
including attorneys, paralegals, prosecutors,
defenders, and judiciary
IBA & MCBA are non-partisan, & have longstanding
commitment to promoting safety in local courts
IBA Security Task Force created in 1998
IBA & IBF implemented pilot security program in
2001
Launched Justice Center Task Force in 2002
IBF/IBA have committed thousands of hours and
nearly $100,000 in funds to court safety
The Current Crisis



Two Primary Risks
1. Release Of Violent Criminals Due In
Part to Insufficient # of Courts
2. Violent Criminals, Litigants, &
Participants In Volatile Courts In
Dangerous Times
Problem: History of and
Potential for Violence in Court




Annually almost 70,000 prisoners are transported
within Marion County courts, for an average of over
5,700 monthly, or almost 300 daily.
Because of the 1950s design of the building, these
prisoners are transported in the midst of the public
Within the building nearly 500 arrests are made
annually, often more than 40 a month.
Nearly 700 alarms or emergencies are reported in the
building annually, an average of 2x daily
The building is one of the most dangerous places in
our otherwise proud city
Lessons from
Atlanta & Chicago






Courts are dangerous places
The stakes are high for litigants
Many litigants are unstable
Federal judges receive 700 threats annually – 1 per
judge
There have been countless incidents nationwide
Including here in Indiana (e.g., Howard County
Courthouse bombing) & Indianapolis (escapes,
assaults, etc)
This Impacts
More Than 500,000 Residents




There are approximately 2,500 total employees who
work in the City-County building (410 in the courts)
The Building Authority did a study recently to track the
number of non-employees entering the building at
peak time (around 9 and 1).
Over 1,300 entered the building at the 9am peak hour,
while over 1,200 entered the building in the hour
surrounding the 1:00 peak hour. This excludes the
2,500 employees.
Over half a million people come and go in the building
annually, for marriage licenses, tax payments,
government business, jury service, court matters, etc.
Further Analysis – Systemic
Inefficiencies & Waste


Inefficiencies In Overall Process – From
Processing, Detention, Adjudication, &
Jailing
Years of Band-Aid, Patchwork Fixes
Have Left an Expensive, Inefficient,
Wasteful System
Resultant
Early Release Problem




Inadequate Space, Judges, & Resources,
Coupled With Jail Cap, Means Release Of
Dangerous Felons
5 Murders We Know Of So Far From Early
Releases
How Many Rapes, Batteries, Burglaries?
As the Mayor said in his State of the City, “No
local elected official can be missing in action!
No more excuses! It's time to end the crisis of
early release of criminals!”
Proposed
Short-Term Solutions




Immediate Assessment of Transport
Procedures, Including Weapons
Immediate Assessment of Risk
Classification
Immediate Assessment of Civil Court
Security
Immediate Assessment of Security
Staffing Levels
Long-Term Solutions Have
Been Studied Extensively







1977
1991
1997
1998
1999
2002
2004
Space Acquired for Separate Building
Marion County Governmental Space Study
Indiana Supreme Court Caseload Study
CourtWorks Space Study
Court Needs Assessment
Justice Center Task Force
Crim. Justice Planning Strategic Plan
All Taxpayer-Funded Studies
Over 15 Years Agree On The Only
Feasible Long-Term Solution



City-County Council passed Special
Resolution 55 on Sep. 10, 1990, calling
for a formal study of space needs
December 1991 the Indianapolis Marion
County Governmental Space Study was
issued
This comprehensive report found
serious safety concerns with the court
facilities
Highlights Of The 1991 Report


“The judicial system has expanded into
space never intended nor designed to have
courtrooms.”
“Courts pose significant security risks, and
have unique space requirements not met
by general office space.”
More From The 1991 Report


"Security and the issue of separation of
incompatible functions is a concern of all occupants
of the City-County Building, particularly with regard
to the courts. The threat of violence is most
evidence in the Civil and Domestic Courts, where
personal emotions run the highest and are the
most volatile. Witness protection, by means of
separation, does not exist currently.”
“Prisoner transfer to and from hearings occurs
through public corridors.”
1991 Report
Recommendations
"A new judicial center most successfully addresses the
need for separation, security, and adjacency
relationships of the most critical functions of the entire
courts system and City-County government.”

"The City-County Building does not provide a sufficient
number of adequate courtrooms to fulfill the obligations
that the state has imposed on creating new courts."
What Else In The 90s



In 1997 the Indiana Supreme Court’s weighted
caseload study determined that, based on
caseloads in Marion County, we needed nearly
30 more judicial officers (this has not yet
occurred)
1998 the Marion County Courts retained the
Court Works firm from Virginia to analyze space
needs
1998 Facility Utilization Plan recommended
construction of a new judicial facility
What Did The 1998 Study Say



“The present facilities offer no separation
between staff, prisoner, and public
circulation, as required by currently accepted
court guidelines.”
“Some criminal courts do not have adjacent
holding cells and prisoners must be chained
together in the courtroom.”
“There are not enough courtrooms and
hearing rooms.”
1998 Recommendations

"The best solution, one which solves all of the courts'
space, security, and operational needs as well as
relieves much of the visitor traffic to the City-County
Building, is the construction of a new court facility.
Nearly all of the existing courts experience severe and
dysfunctional space shortages, a general lack of
security, inadequate prisoner circulation, a lack of well
designed prisoner holding, and poor staff circulation.
The result is a serious safety concern for not only
those who work in the courts but for everyone visiting
the courts and City-County Building."
The 1999 Marion County
Courts Needs Assessment


Study noted that courts then used 295,000 square
feet, but needed 465,000 square feet, and would need
more than 500,000 square feet by 2010
The Report recommended construction of a new
facility. "[This] provides the best solution for
long-term growth and continued operation of the
courts, provides the greatest safety and security for all
occupants of the building, and assures handicapped
accessibility to all areas of the building."
2004 Strategic Plan


Recognizes This Longstanding Problem
Similarly Recommends A New, Separate
Justice Center
2004 Criminal Justice Summit

At Mayor’s Criminal Justice Summit,
leaders agreed public safety is our
community’s # 1 priority
What Are The Standards For Safe
& Adequate Court Facilities?




No reasonable person disputes that Marion
County must have safe court facilities
But we do not have safe and adequate courts
today, and have not for far too long
Indiana’s Courthouse Security Minimum
Standards dictate that interior circulation
system of the public, employees, and
prisoners should be separate
This is impossible in the City-County Building
State Law Requires the CityCounty Council To Act


I.C. 33-33-49-17(b): The city-council shall
provide and maintain in the building and at
other places as the [Marion Superior] court may
determine suitable and convenient courtrooms
for the holding of the court, suitable and
convenient jury rooms, and offices for the
judges other court officers and personnel, and
other facilities as may be necessary.
Yet suitable space has not existed since at least
1991, to the risk of the public and court staff
Examples Of Recent Low-Rise Facilities
It’s Time To Finally
Plan For the Future




Plan a unified safe and adequate justice center
encompassing processing, detention, adjudication, and
possibly jailing
Downtown is an option, but not the only option – why
put criminal justice on the most expensive downtown
land forcing high-rise, expensive building while
deterring Market Square development?
Many options exist – Eastgate, Lafayette Square area,
Sherman Park in Center Township, etc. – we don’t
advocate any particular option; let them compete
while local government studies the best options
But let’s move the dangerous work of the courts out of
the office building, and move government agencies
back into the government office tower
How To Finance This Necessary
Investment In Public Safety


Professional facilities planners estimate that a safe and
adequate facility would likely range in the $95 million $195 million range.
Funding could come from:





rental savings from agencies relocating to the City-County
Building (estimated > $2million annually);
cost savings in personnel – plus more officers on the street
rather than on chain gangs
adjustments to court fees (> $2million annually)
increased property tax revenues from downtown
development
a modest property tax enhancement that would add $10
annually on a $75,000 market value home
Recommended Action Steps




1. Immediate Assessment Of Security
2. Additional Staffing As Warranted
3. Declare Unequivocally That, Long-Term, The
Criminal Courts Ultimately Should Not Be In This
Government Office Tower
4. Begin Planning The Location, Composition, &
Financing Of A Safe & Adequate Criminal Justice
Center
For More Information
www.indyjusticecenter.org