Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:45 PM ET, 11/22/2010

Federal courthouses, personnel could be at risk, report says

By Ed O'Keefe


The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. (Post)

Federal judges and court personnel could be at risk because of poor training, questionable contracts and broken security equipment used by guards protecting the nation's federal courthouses, according to a new report by the Justice Department's inspector general.

Federal courthouse security is handled by the U.S. Marshals Service, which employs about 5,000 contract guards to protect more than 2,000 federal judges and 6,000 other court personnel working at 400 court facilities nationwide.

But multiple district offices failed to detect mock explosive devices sent to them in February 2009 by agency officials as part of a test of local security procedures, the report said. Three unnamed federal district court chief judges at unspecified locations shared serious concerns about security procedures, especially with how guards screen visitors and large vehicles entering courthouses. Names and locations were not published for security purposes, according to the inspector general's office.

Courthouse security is divided into 12 districts, and a review of six districts found that security officials and judges do not meet regularly to review security procedures. Officers in three districts failed to conduct quarterly testing of contract guards to review how they screen visitors, packages and mail.

Despite concerns about physical security at courthouses, the report did not reference any specific or imminent threats against federal judges or court facilities. Federal court personnel were the target of 1,278 threats in fiscal 2008, more than double the threats received in 2003, according to an inspector general's report published last year.

The report raises concerns with the Marshals' management of contracts with private security firms, noting that the agency awarded a $300 million contract to a company with a history of fraud that later filed for bankruptcy, leaving many private guards without pay or benefits.

The Marshals also lack maintenance agreements for millions of dollars worth of security screening equipment, the report said. In some cases, X-ray machines and metal detectors were out of service for periods of one day to several weeks, investigators found.

Compounding the concerns, a sampling of personnel files found that more than half contained out-of-date medical examination records and a third lacked firearms qualification records. Background checks also were not completed in a timely manner, according to a sampling of background investigation records for private guards.

Jeff Carter, a Marshals spokesman, said the agency worked with the inspector general's office on the investigation and is making changes recommended by investigators.

"We take these responsibilities seriously and realize there is always room for improvement and continue to make great strides in our efforts to protect the federal judiciary," Carter said in an e-mail. "The Marshals Service is proud of our ability to ensure the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings."

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe  | November 22, 2010; 3:45 PM ET
Categories:  Agencies and Departments, Oversight, Workplace Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Who is exempt from airport security?
Next: Unions defending TSA workers from backlash

Comments

Breaking news from 1995?

Posted by: getjiggly1 | November 22, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Given numberless credible reports of threats on judges's lives, this is a serious matter. The job does not pay that well. You make horrendously difficult determinations that get appealed all the time. No one remembers who you were after you are dead. Life time appointment is super, but most so appointed would have been able to avoid unemployment anyways, earning a heck of a lot more. The least the government can do for these people is ensure the absence of homicide.

Posted by: Martial | November 22, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Why does the federal government insist on hiring private contractors? Hire the guards outright. Give them federal pay and federal benefits. Train them. It makes no sense to hire cheap help so someone's relative who sets up a security company can make a bundle.

Posted by: MNUSA | November 22, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys to do a job. There was a time when the US Marshal's Service ran the security aspects of the judiciary.

What in tarnation happened?

Sounds like the USMS needs to deputize some "civic-minded" and upstanding citizens, for service.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | November 22, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear friends, do you want to have some different

things? Whether you want to give your relatives and

friends, take a few different exotic gifts? Whether you

want to buy some cheap benefits of thing? So please,

let us begin now!

Click on our website


(= = = = = http://www.ashops.us/ = = = = = )

Will bring you different surprise

Posted by: lizhiyong126 | November 22, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company