Circuit court judges won’t come here

If you have a court date in Custer County in the near future, you better check with your attorney; it might not be held in Custer.
That’s because last week the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court issued an order that essentially states those judges will not come to Custer for court proceedings due to the recent resolution adopted by the Custer County Commission that states the general public can carry firearms into the courthouse.
The order, signed by Craig Pfeifle, presiding judge of the Seventh Circuit, states the Custer County Courthouse “is currently unsuitable and insufficient due to safety concerns for court proceedings0” due to the firearms resolution.
The order further states all proceedings in which a judge would otherwise be present in the courthouse will now be held via audiovisual means or at the Pennington County Courthouse in Rapid City. Any jury trial will consist of a jury pool of Custer County residents, but the trial will take place at  the Pennington County Courthouse.
Reached via email, Pfeifle declined to comment.
“I think the position of the judges was stated at the Nov 18 commission meeting,” he wrote.
It was at that meeting that Pfeifle and fellow Seventh Circuit judge Matt Brown, a Custer County resident, urged the commission to reconsider the resolution, citing safety concerns as well as potential liability concerns. Both Pfeifle and Brown felt allowing courthouse employees to carry was a fair compromise, and as of July 1 a new state law allows courthouse employees to bring firearms to work except for areas being used by the court. Pfeifle hinted if the resolution stood, there were actions he, as presiding judge, could take under state statute to protect circuit court personnel as he saw fit, as he had a couple of years earlier when the issue first came up.
At a Nov. 30 special meeting of the commission,  a room full of supporters of the resolution asked the commission to stand firm, which it did. By the next day magistrate court in Custer was being held via Zoom teleconference.
State’s attorney Tracy Kelley, who warned the commission of the potential for judges to refuse to come to Custer should the resolution stand, said Tuesday’s court via teleconference was full of glitches and was  “not an ideal system.”
“That experience posed many challenges,” she said, adding she was hopeful the challenges could be smoothed out by the next court date Dec. 10.
“I anticipate it will take some time to work through the challenges and difficulties posed with handling court in this manner,” she said.
As for substantive hearings that require face-to-face appearances with the court, Kelley and her fellow attorneys in the office, as well as defendants, defendants’ attorneys and court staff will likely be required to travel to Rapid City for those hearings.  Such hearings will include evidentiary hearings such as preliminary hearings, motion hearings, jury trials and grand jury proceedings.  
Kelley said moving court to Rapid City presents additional challenges, as well as an increased financial cost to Custer County. The wheels of justice may likely turn more slowly, as well.
By way of example, Kelley noted that having her office readily accessible on court dates allows for quick changes in paperwork and filings that may be needed to proceed with cases on a given court date.  It makes the system efficient for both the court and defendants by foregoing the need to set further future hearings to accomplish the same ends.
“We will not have such means readily available in Pennington County, which may create delays and require future hearings,” Kelley said.
Kelley said preplanning will be needed to help facilitate court running smoothly. Where defendants are represented by an attorney that preplanning will be easier than with defendants who handle their own cases.
In anticipation of court hearings, it will be helpful to file any necessary documents with the court in advance of the court date to allow the judges to have those documents available for viewing when they appear via teleconference.  Judges will not be able to see any documents being filed at the time of court hearings when they appear remotely.  
“The system will not be ideal and we will work with everyone to do our part to make things run as best as possible,” Kelley said.
If court is to be held in Rapid City, Kelley noted it will take staff out of both the state’s attorney’s and sheriff’s offices, making them unavailable to the public for longer periods of time.  Fuel costs for travel and per diem for meals will be added costs for the county for those employees, including increased wages for law enforcement and court-appointed attorney fees.  
Kelley said it’s possible the county may have to foot the bill for mileage for defendants to travel to Rapid City and undoubtedly will have increased mileage for potential jurors. Kelley said a new grand jury is set to be seated in January and paying the jurors 42 cents a mile will add up quickly. Those costs increase accordingly with regular jury trials that have larger juror pools called for jury selection. Kelley noted these may be only some of the added costs.
Kelley said she is a proponent of the Second Amendment, but feels the courthouse is not a place the public should be allowed to carry firearms. She cited the same or similar reasons as those expressed by judges Pfeifle and Brown.
“Introducing firearms into the courthouse environment increases the risk of something happening, whether that results from an accidental discharge or someone is triggered by a quick, emotional reaction,” she said. “If something happens, except in a rare circumstance, the county is not going to have insurance to rely on for either defense or funding and I do not feel it is prudent to risk taxpayer dollars in that manner.
“And while I personally have firearms, I have never carried a firearm into the courthouse.  I have enough common sense and understanding of my abilities with a firearm to know I am not making anyone safer by carrying in the courthouse.”
Commissioner Mark Hartman, a proponent of allowing the public to carry firearms in the courthouse, declined to comment on the court’s decision, citing advice of county legal counsel.
Commissioner Jesse Sorenson, who also voted in favor of the resolution, said he feels the court area is kept safe under the resolution and feels the commission is being bullied by the court system.
“We will try to get through it, but I don’t know if we can,” he said. “If it starts costing the county a lot of money we’re going to have to revisit it.”
Ultimately, Sorenson may not be around if and when the resolution is revisited, as he exits the commission in the new year and former commissioner Travis Bies rejoins the commission.
Commission chairman Jim Lintz reiterated what he said at the special meeting Nov. 30, that the commission is going to have to decide if the resolution is worth the cost the county will incur for moving court to Rapid City.
“(Pfeifle) told us what they were going to do. He was up front and said, ‘We’re going to do this. How more plainly could you put it? It isn’t a shock,” he said.
Lintz said because of the court’s authority granted via state statute to move court or even override county resolutions in regard to the courts, he feels those who want to take up the firearms in the courthouse fight may be better off doing so in Pierre at the state legislature level.
“(The commission) can’t win that fight,” he said.
Kelley said she does not know what the court system will ultimately look like or how it will operate as time passes and the court adjusts to what works and what doesn’t, but her office will do its part to handle cases as efficiently as possible within the system set up by the courts.
“Should the commission rescind the resolution as it applies to the public, I anticipate court would return to business as usual in Custer County,” she said. “As long as the resolution remains valid, we will adjust as needed and as directed by the court.”