The tragic events of Friday, March 11, 2005, at the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia, unfortunately arose from a situation that is common in many security environments. People become complacent and tragedy results. A felon on trial for rape takes a deputy’s gun and goes on a rampage. The security lapses at the courthouse resulted in the deaths of a judge, court reporter, deputy sheriff, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent, and serious injury of a second deputy sheriff and a bystander in a parking garage. All of the usual complaints and opinions were expressed by the public with accusations against several individuals and entities for allowing the situation to occur. Finger pointing and “passing the buck” are not solutions-they incense public opinions without suggesting viable solutions.
This problem is not solely within the jurisdiction of any government or corporate level. The civilian and business communities can just as easily be victims of similar acts.
A major question in any such situation is who has “ownership” for security. Is it the senior security executive, law enforcement, corporate or government management, or a combination of these participants? The correct answer is that everyone affected has to claim ownership if there is to be a comprehensive and effective security program to protect people and property. Corporate executives, government officials, and security managers have primary leadership responsibility for the program but everyone affected must be a participant.
Immediately following such a tragedy, a call inevitably goes out for additional security staffing. This is not necessarily the best response. Adding personnel is an expensive proposition and may not provide the best return on the security investment. Innovation and technology may provide better security at a lesser cost.
In the Fulton County Courthouse situation, a five-foot tall, 51 year old female deputy sheriff was escorting a six foot tall, over 200 pound ex-football player to court to face trial for a felony. Jail manufactured knives or “shanks” were found in the shoes of the suspect when he was returning from court on a previous day. The slain judge had also requested additional security for the court because of the potential threat of problems with the suspect. The area where the deputy sheriff was overpowered by the suspect was under video surveillance; however, it was not being monitored.
This is in no way an adverse reflection on the capabilities of the deputy sheriff. The truth is that she was no physical match for the person she was charged with escorting. Court rules also required that prisoners not be handcuffed or shackled while in the courtroom so as to not adversely influence the jury. Ironically, when the suspect appeared in court following his capture, the local media reported that he was surrounded by 19 law enforcement officers while in the courtroom.
What is the solution? Personnel cost money and there must be a marriage of personnel, technology, policies and procedures to provide a cost-effective solution. The major impediment is the inability of managers to provide cost-effective justification for their needs. In a court or jail situation, the use of electronic restraint devices effectively reduces the manpower requirement for control of the suspect. Simply speaking, by identifying the cost of technology and the number of personnel required to provide a comparable level of security, it can be shown than the use of technology is a viable alternative to radical and costly increases in staffing levels.
All knowledge of security issues and responses is not in the purview of the security professional. Sometimes the professional is so close to the forest that he can not see the trees. Other times the professional is overcome with traditional approaches and does not clearly see alternative methodologies. An important aspect of providing appropriate security is to encourage input by all persons affected. The maintenance employee or office staff member may have a different prospective of a potential problem and its solutions. Through suggestion and rewards programs, ALL employees should be encouraged to provide input to solve problems affecting everyone. These suggestions should be impartially studied by a focus group to encourage “buy in” and a feeling of being a part of the problem solution.
No program is adequate without appropriate management and supervision. When management and supervision are absent, the problem will inevitably deteriorate and become a significant liability instead of a viable solution. Each segment of the program, whether it is staffing, supervision, management, policies, procedures, or technology must be subject to quality management review on a periodic basis. These management reviews must be documented as a negligent security liability defense strategy. The review should include identification of problem areas, solutions, and justification for all related decisions. The senior corporate or governmental executive should sign the document to provide certification that executive management is aware of security related problems and solutions.
One problem that came to the forefront in Fulton County was the coordination of response activities involving numerous corporate and governmental agencies. According to some critics, this response inadequacy resulted in additional injuries and deaths. Corporate and governmental response plans should be developed to reduce confusion, provide sole-source leadership, and effective utilization of resources. It is definitely not time for “everyone to do their own thing.”
The goal of any security program-corporate or governmental-must be to provide adequate and appropriate cost-effective protection for people and property. A secondary goal is to provide a database for defense of possible negligent security or premises liability litigation.