Can a Tennessee general sessions judge ignore courthouse security rules set by the county security committee?

Subject

Opinion No. 12-107, County Courthouse Security, November 26, 2012

Plain-English summary

Senator Hensley asked three questions about who controls courthouse security and dress rules in Tennessee. Three different bodies have overlapping interests: the County Court Security Committee (under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)), the sheriff (under § 5-7-108(a)), and the general sessions judge (under § 16-15-406 and inherent judicial powers).

Question 1: Can a general sessions judge refuse to enforce security/dress rules set by the County Court Security Committee?

Probably not. General sessions courts have statutory authority (§ 16-15-406) to "adopt such rules as may be necessary to expedite the trial and disposal of cases" and inherent power to protect the dignity and effective operation of the court (Anderson County Quarterly Court v. Judges of the 28th Judicial Circuit). But Anderson County also says inherent powers aren't "a license for unwarranted flexing of judicial power" and should be exercised only when "reasonable and necessary." Refusing to follow security rules properly adopted by the County Court Security Committee, on which the presiding judge sits as a member, is unlikely to qualify as either.

The County Court Security Committee is set up by § 16-2-505(d)(2) with a balanced membership: the county mayor, sheriff, district attorney general, the presiding judge of the judicial district, and a court clerk designated by the presiding judge. Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 had previously analyzed this body's powers. The Committee can put into effect security measures affecting state trial judges' courtrooms and personnel "as long as these measures do not require county expenditures." Recommendations that need county money must go to the county legislative body for approval (§ 16-2-505(d)(4)). The opinion extends this to general sessions courts when their facilities share the same building.

Question 2: Can a general sessions judge hold the sheriff or deputies in contempt for enforcing these rules?

No. A Tennessee court's contempt authority is limited to the categories listed in § 29-9-102 (State v. Beeler; Reed v. Hamilton). A sheriff or deputy doing exactly what the County Court Security Committee duly adopted them to do isn't engaging in contemptuous conduct. State v. Maddux similarly held that defense counsel's good-faith arguments to be relieved of appointment couldn't constitute contempt.

Question 3: Can a general sessions judge control security near the courtroom?

Yes, with limits. The judge has authority under § 16-15-405 to adopt rules to protect court dignity and expedite business. That authority reaches conduct outside the courtroom that interferes with proceedings (noise in a corridor or entranceway, for example). But any such rule must not contradict security rules properly promulgated by the County Court Security Committee.

The opinion includes a footnote noting that the materials provided showed security rules apparently adopted by the sheriff alone. The sheriff is only authorized to IMPLEMENT, not ADOPT, security protocols. Any binding security protocols must come from the Court Security Committee (and from the county legislative body if they involve expenditures).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

The County Court Security Committee

§ 16-2-505(d)(2): Every county must establish a court security committee composed of the county mayor, sheriff, district attorney general, presiding judge of the judicial district, and a court clerk from the county designated by the presiding judge. The Committee's job: examine space and facilities to determine the security needs of the county's courtrooms.

§ 16-2-505(d)(3) sets out the implementation procedure:

• (A) The administrative office of the courts distributes minimum security standards adopted by the Tennessee judicial conference.
• (B) By May 15 each year, the committee reports findings to the county legislative body and the AOC.
• (C) The county legislative body reviews and considers the recommendations in budget preparation.
• (D) By December 1 each year, the county legislative body reports to the AOC on action taken.
• (E) By January 15 each year, the AOC reports to the General Assembly on county compliance.

§ 16-2-505(d)(4): Any committee recommendation requiring county expenditures requires county legislative body approval.

The sheriff's role

§ 5-7-108(a)(1): Unless the county legislative body specifically designates otherwise, sheriffs "have charge of the county courthouse and shall prevent trespasses, exclude intruders, and keep it and the grounds attached thereto in order." The sheriff is the on-the-ground administrator who implements security measures.

The general sessions court's role

§ 16-15-406: Authorizes general sessions courts to adopt rules "as may be necessary to expedite the trial and disposal of cases." General sessions courts also have inherent authority to protect dignity, independence, integrity, and effective business conduct (Anderson County Quarterly Court v. Judges of the 28th Judicial Circuit). But that authority must be exercised reasonably and necessarily (Anderson County, State v. Reid).

The contempt limit

§ 29-9-102 lists the categories of conduct that may be punished as contempt. State v. Beeler (Tenn. Nov. 15, 2012) and Reed v. Hamilton make clear: contempt power is bounded by the statute. A sheriff implementing security rules that the Court Security Committee properly adopted isn't engaging in contemptuous conduct under § 29-9-102.

Implementation vs. adoption

The opinion makes a structural distinction: the Court Security Committee ADOPTS security policy. The sheriff IMPLEMENTS it. A sheriff who adopts security rules unilaterally, without Committee approval, has acted outside the statutory scheme. Keough v. State supplies the canon: a specific statute prevails over a general one. Here, § 16-2-505(d) (specific) controls security policy adoption over § 5-7-108 (general sheriff authority).

The 2002 opinion as foundation

Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 (April 24, 2002) is the AG's previous analysis. It held:

• The Committee has authority to put into effect security measures affecting state trial judges' space and facilities, as long as no county expenditures are required.
• Such measures may affect courtrooms and court personnel if reasonably related to facility security.
• Recommendations requiring county money must go to the county legislative body.
• The Committee's enforcement authority comes from the statutory structure, the county legislative body's control over the courthouse, and the sheriff's delegated security responsibility.
• No statute authorizes the Committee to impose monetary or other penalties for non-compliance, but the sheriff (subject to county commission direction) may exclude non-compliant individuals from the courthouse.

The 2012 opinion extends 02-052's reasoning to general sessions courts in shared facilities and to the specific dispute about a judge refusing to follow Committee rules.

Common questions

What happens if a judge insists on different rules in their own courtroom?
The opinion suggests the judge probably lacks authority to override Committee-adopted security rules in the courthouse generally. The judge may adopt complementary rules (e.g., specific decorum standards within the courtroom) that don't conflict, but rules that contradict Committee security policies are not enforceable.

Can a judge be removed for refusing to follow Committee rules?
The opinion doesn't address removal. It addresses whether the refusal would be lawful. Judicial discipline is a separate process.

Does the sheriff need separate authorization for each security measure?
Not necessarily. The Committee can adopt a security framework; the sheriff implements within that framework. Day-to-day operational decisions belong to the sheriff. Policy changes require Committee action.

What if the County Court Security Committee never meets?
Each county is required by § 16-2-505(d)(2) to have such a committee. § 16-2-505(d)(3) imposes annual reporting deadlines. A county that doesn't comply has a different problem than the policy disputes addressed in this opinion.

Can a general sessions judge regulate behavior in the parking lot?
The opinion supports rules covering "areas where they are likely to interfere with the judge's court proceedings." A parking lot is harder to fit within that scope than a corridor outside the courtroom; rule-by-rule analysis would apply.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-108(a), (a)(1) (sheriff's charge of courthouse)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d), (d)(2)-(4) (County Court Security Committee)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-405, -406 (general sessions court rule-making authority)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102 (contempt categories)

Cases and prior opinions:

• Anderson County Quarterly Court v. Judges of the 28th Judicial Circuit, 579 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978)
• State v. Reid, 981 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1998)
• Sanifill of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, 907 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1995)
• State v. Beeler, No. E2010-00860-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Nov. 15, 2012)
• Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)
• State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819 (Tenn. 1978)
• Keough v. State, 356 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2011)
• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 (Apr. 24, 2002)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2012/op12-107.pdf

Original opinion text

S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
PO BOX 20207
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202

November 26, 2012

Opinion No. 12-107

County Courthouse Security

QUESTIONS

1. May a general sessions judge refuse to enforce rules for security and dress in the courtroom that were established by the County Court Security Committee created under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(2)?

2. Can a general sessions judge find a sheriff or the sheriff's deputies in contempt for enforcing the security and dress rules established by the County Court Security Committee?

3. Does a general sessions judge have authority to control security procedures near the judge's courtroom?

OPINIONS

1. Probably not. While general sessions judges have statutory and inherent authority to exercise all powers reasonably necessary to protect the dignity, independence and integrity of their courts, and to enable their courts to efficiently perform their judicial functions, the exercise of such authority to refuse to follow courthouse security rules properly promulgated by the County Court Security Commission, of which the presiding judge is a member, is likely neither reasonable nor necessary.

2. No. The sheriff is generally the administrator of the county courthouse under Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-108(a), and, as such, the sheriff is required to implement and follow all rules properly established by the County Court Security Commission.

3. A general sessions judge has the authority to adopt rules related to conduct and decorum that take place outside the courtroom if such matters occur in areas where they are likely to interfere with the judge's court proceedings, and are not contrary to rules that are reasonably related to courthouse security and were properly promulgated by the County Court Security Committee.

ANALYSIS

This opinion request seeks guidance on who has the primary responsibility for developing rules governing security at a county courthouse. The request specifically focuses on the role of general sessions judges, sheriffs and County Court Security Committees in developing and implementing such rules.

County Court Security Committees derive their authority from Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d), which states in relevant part:

(2) Each county shall establish a court security committee composed of the county mayor, sheriff, district attorney general, the presiding judge of the judicial district and a court clerk from the county to be designated by the presiding judge, for the purpose of examining the space and facilities to determine the security needs of the courtrooms in the county in order to provide safe and secure facilities.

(3) Upon completion of the examination of security needs, the following procedure shall be followed:

(A) The administrative office of the courts shall distribute to each court security committee a copy of the minimum security standards as adopted by the Tennessee judicial conference, and each committee shall review and consider these standards in determining court security needs.

(B) No later than May 15 each year, the court security committee shall report its findings to the county legislative body and the administrative office of the courts.

(C) The county legislative body shall review and consider the recommendations of the court security committee in the preparation of each fiscal year budget.

(D) No later than December 1 each year, the county legislative body shall report to the administrative office of the courts any action taken to meet the security needs.

(E) No later than January 15 each year, the administrative office of the courts shall report to the general assembly on the compliance by each county government with the security needs established by the court security committee.

(4) Any recommendation by the court security committee requiring county expenditures shall be subject to approval of the county legislative body.

Unless the county legislative body specifically designates otherwise, sheriffs have charge of the county courthouse and "shall prevent trespasses, exclude intruders, and keep it and the grounds attached thereto in order, reporting from time to time the repairs required, and the expense, to the county legislative body." Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-108(a)(1).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-406 authorizes general sessions courts to adopt rules governing the handling of cases before them, stating that "[j]udges of the courts of general sessions shall adopt such rules as may be necessary to expedite the trial and disposal of cases." General sessions courts, like all trial courts, also have inherent powers to act to protect their dignity, independence, integrity and to effectively conduct their business. See Anderson County Quarterly Court v. Judges of the 28th Judicial Circuit, 579 S.W.2d 875, 878-79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978). However, the Court of Appeals in Anderson County recognized that a court's inherent powers are "not a license for unwarranted flexing of judicial power" and should only be exercised when "reasonable and necessary." Id. at 879. See also State v. Reid, 981 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tenn. 1998).

This Office has previously addressed the interrelationship of the County Court Security Committee, the sheriff and the general sessions judge regarding setting security protocols at a county courthouse. Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 (April 24, 2002). This Office opined that Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(2) grants the County Court Security Committee the authority to "put into effect security measures affecting the security of space and facilities provided to state trial judges, as long as these measures do not require county expenditures" and that such measures may affect courtrooms and court personnel "if the measures are reasonably related to ensuring security of space and facilities" provided to judges. Id. at 1-2. Any recommendation by the Committee that requires county expenditures must be approved by the county legislative body. Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(4). As this Office explained:

The first question is whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(2) — (4) applies to general sessions courts, judges, and employees. These provisions were enacted by 1995 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 225 under the caption "AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 16-2-505(d), relative to facilities for state trial judges." General sessions judges are ordinarily considered to be county officials, not state officials. Further, the statute expressly refers to space provided judges elected under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-506. That statute describes judicial districts for circuit and chancery courts and district attorneys general. But we think the committee also may address security measures with regard to general sessions courts and personnel to the extent these measures impact security for the circuit and chancery court facilities. Material included with the request indicates that general sessions courtrooms are in the same building as the state trial judges' courtrooms in the county in question. In this circumstance, we think the court security committee established by the county under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(2) is authorized to include general sessions court space and personnel in reviewing courtroom security needs that it recommends to the county commission.

. . . .

The second question is whether the court security committee established by the county under Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(2) has the authority to promulgate security rules and regulations directly affecting general sessions courts, including having general sessions judges and their employees screened and searched by courthouse security. As cited above, the statutory scheme explicitly grants this committee only the authority to review security needs and make recommendations to the county commission. It does not directly accord the committee any implementing authority of its own. Ordinarily, statutes granting powers to administrative agencies include only those conferred either expressly or by necessary implication. Sanifill of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, 907 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1995). The statute does provide that "[a]ny recommendation of the court security committee requiring county expenditures shall be subject to approval of the county legislative body." Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d)(4) (emphasis added). It may be inferred, therefore, that the committee is authorized to implement security recommendations that do not require county expenditures, so long as they are reasonably related to ensuring security of the space and facilities that the county provides to the state trial judges. In our opinion, these measures could include provisions directly affecting general sessions judges and personnel if they are reasonably related to ensuring security for the courtrooms and facilities provided state trial judges.

. . . .

The next question is the authority of the court security committee to enforce a rule against general sessions judges. As discussed above, this authority may stem from the statute establishing the committee; the statute according the county legislative body control over the courthouse; the statute delegating courthouse and courtroom security to the sheriff; and inherent judicial authority.

The request also asks what penalties could be exacted upon the general sessions judges and employees who refuse to comply with the pronouncements of the committee. No statute authorizes the committee to impose a monetary or other penalty for failure to comply with valid court security measures. Based on the discussion above, however, and subject to the direction of the county commission, we think the sheriff may exclude individuals from the courthouse who refuse to comply with reasonable security procedures.

Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 at 3-4.

1. Applying these principles to the questions posed, the General Assembly by virtue of Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-205(d) has generally placed the responsibility for developing security measures at a county courthouse with the County Court Security Committee, although any adopted standard requiring an expenditure of county funds also requires the approval of the county legislative body. The General Assembly's action thus places this responsibility with a body that includes representation of the various interests using and responsible for the courthouse, those being the county mayor, sheriff, district attorney general, the presiding judge of the judicial district and a court clerk from the county to be designated by the presiding judge. Rules duly adopted by this Committee that are reasonably related to ensuring the security of the courthouse are binding upon all court personnel, including the judges utilizing the courthouse. See Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 02-052 at 3-4. [Footnote 1: The materials provided to this Office with this opinion request included security rules apparently adopted by the sheriff rather than the County Court Security Committee. The sheriff is only authorized to implement, not adopt, security protocols, and therefore any protocols adopted must be approved by the Committee and may not be authorized solely by the sheriff. Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-505(d) with Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-108. See also Keough v. State, 356 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tenn. 2011) (citing the general rule of statutory construction that a specific or special statute will prevail over a general provision in another statute).]

2. A judge may not find the sheriff or any of the sheriff's staff guilty of contempt solely for following and implementing rules reasonably related to the security of the courthouse that were duly adopted by the County Court Security Committee. See State v. Beeler, No. E2010-00860-SC-R11-CD, at 11 (Tenn. Nov. 15, 2012); Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115, 117-18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (both stating that a Tennessee court's contempt authority is limited in that courts may only punish as contemptuous the types of acts described by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102). See also State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tenn. 1978) (Supreme Court finding that defense attorney's good-faith arguments made in an effort to be relieved of a criminal appointment could not constitute a basis for contempt).

3. In response to the third question posed, as previously discussed a general sessions court, like any other court, has the authority to adopt rules and procedures to protect its dignity and to expedite the transaction of court business. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-405. Certain types of conduct that occur outside the courtroom during court proceedings, such as excessive noise in a corridor or entranceway, can be just as disruptive as noise and other conduct that occurs within the courtroom. A general sessions court, therefore, has the authority to adopt rules and directives related to conduct that occurs outside the courtroom during court proceedings if such rules and directives cover areas where noise or other disruptive conduct is likely to interfere with the court's ability to conduct its business. However, as previously noted, any such rule or directive should conform with any rules reasonably related to the security of the courthouse duly promulgated by the County Court Security Committee.

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Attorney General and Reporter

WILLIAM E. YOUNG
Solicitor General

MICHAEL A. MEYER
Deputy Attorney General

Requested by:
Honorable Joey Hensley
State Senator
106 War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243