|
|
Emergency
Management for Courts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A pdf version
of this material is available on-line at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Comm_CtSecEMfCtsPub.pdf
|
|
|
|
Emergency management
is critical to court performance. For many years, court leaders have been
concerned with ensuring the safety of all who use the Nation’s courthouses.
During the 1978 Second National Conference on the Judiciary, participants
recognized that “security in the courtroom and in the courthouse has been an
increasing problem in recent years” (Friesen, 1978, p. 195).
The 1990 Trial Court Performance Standards required courts to
ensure the safety of their facilities (Commission on Trial Court Performance
Standards, 1990). In 1995, the National Association for Court Management
produced the Court Security Guide, and several states followed with
their own security manuals.
This focus on emergency management
increased exponentially following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Since then, the court community has heightened its efforts to address safety
issues across the board. For example, the September 2002 9-11 Summit (http://www.9-11summit.org/)
brought together court leaders from across the country to discuss emergency
management and pool the knowledge of court professionals who experienced
emergencies first-hand. Judicial organizations also responded by offering
programs on, creating committees to specifically address, and writing journal
and newsletter articles on emergency management. The Best Practices Institute
Board also acknowledged the importance of emergency management by designating
it a focus area for the Institute in 2002-2003.
The
term “emergency management” encompasses all activities related to
preventing, planning for, and responding to a crisis situation
affecting court operations. See the section “What Does Emergency
Management Include?” for more information.
References
Commission
on Trial Court Performance Standards. (1990). Trial court performance
standards with commentary. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Also available http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/Standards/stan_1.2.htm.
Friesen,
Jr., E. C. (1978). "Internal Organization and Procedures of the Courts. In T.
J. Fetter (ed.), State courts: A Blueprint for the Future (pp. 179-202). Williamsburg,
VA: National Center for State
Courts.
National
Association for Court Management. (1995). Court Security Guide.
Williamsburg, VA: Author.Top
|
|
|
Why
Develop Emergency Management Best Practices?
As
a result of the increased attention on emergency management, many excellent
resources are available to help state and local courts address issues of
specific concern to them. The 9-11 Summit Web site (http://www.9-11summit.org/)
provides a compendium of materials related to emergency management, including
templates for conducting security audits. Given the wealth of information
available, some court professionals may be uncertain about where to start in
reviewing the effectiveness of their current plans. To assist them, the Best
Practices Institute asked five experts to identify a few practices that all
courts should consider as first steps to enhance their emergency management
efforts—steps that can be taken without the significant expenditure of
additional resources.
Top
|
|
|
How
Were the Practices Developed?
The
emergency management practices were drafted by Institute staff (based on
themes from conference presentations and resource materials) and vetted by
five experts in the area of court safety: Ms. Wendy E. Deer, Counsel to the
Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, New York State Office of Court Administration;
the Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, New York Unified
Court System; the Honorable Joel D. Medd, District Court Judge, Grand Forks,
North Dakota; Mr. Zygmont A. Pines, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania; and
Mr. Steven Steadman, Senior Consultant, Policy Studies, Inc. All of these
individuals have been very involved in state and local efforts to address
emergency management for courts. The Institute gratefully acknowledges the
contributions of these individuals.
Top
|
|
|
What
Does Emergency Management Include?
The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines an emergency as “any
unplanned event that can cause deaths or significant injuries to employees,
customers or the public; or that can shut down your business, disrupt
operations, cause physical or environmental damage, or threaten the
facility’s financial standing or public image (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
, p. 5). FEMA defines emergency management as “the process of preparing for,
mitigating, responding to and recovering from an emergency” (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
, p. 6). The emergency management best practices are based on these broad
definitions of emergency and emergency planning. Emergency management refers
to protecting the court or court system from any event that could threaten its
operation – whether the event is an act of man or an act of nature. It
encompasses all activities commonly associated with the terms “court
security” and “court safety.”
Top
|
|
|
What Are the
Best Practices?
The
following seven practices, drafted in 2003, are offered as a starting point
for courts to review their current emergency management plans. An overview of
each practice is presented, followed by examples of how the practice could be
or has been implemented. A list of resources for additional information also
is provided.
Top
|
|
|
Ensure
Visible Court Leadership
The
court’s leaders set the tone for effective emergency management. They send
the message that planning and practicing for emergencies is the right thing to
do—that it is part of the court’s culture. Although they should be
involved in all stages of the effort, it is especially important that court
leaders be visible at various points in the process to reinforce the
importance of the effort and make sure that everyone complies with the
resulting plan.
Court
leaders also should be visible and accessible during emergencies. To the
extent that leaders demonstrate a commitment to address problems and return to
business as quickly as possible, staff will be reassured and recovery efforts
more systematic and effective.
Examples
Court
leaders participate in security drills and other efforts to insure safety.
Following
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Chief
Judge Kaye immediately consulted with court leaders and resolved to keep New
York’s courts opened. During the next 72 hours, court leaders worked around the
clock, touring courthouses, talking with and reassuring court staff, and
making alternate arrangements where necessary to keep the courts operating.
Following
the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, Chief Judge David
Russell of the U. S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma held a
conference with the Court’s judges and determined to reopen the court as
quickly as possible. In the days that followed, the judges made a concerted
effort to keep information flowing to staff and include staff as much as
possible in the decision-making process. Three days after the attack, the
judge
convened a staff meeting with psychologists, clergy, and FBI representatives
to answer questions and provide support.
Resources
“Coping
with Disaster.” Chief Judge Judith Kaye, Judicature, v. 85 issue 3,
pgs.112-114. (Provides first hand account of 9-11 disaster from leadership
perspective.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/P1LeadingtheCourts/KayeCoping.pdf
“Emergency
Management Guide for Business & Industry.” FEMA, p. 6.
(Discusses the importance of having management support to create
emergency plan.) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
“September
11th: the New York Experience.” Hon. Jonathan Lippman, Conference
of State Court Administrators midyear meeting, November 30, 2001. (Focuses
on the leadership and representation of the judicial system within the
community during the 9-11 attacks.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/P1LeadingtheCourts/911NYExperience.pdf
Top
|
|
|
Survey
and Prioritize Emergency Management Needs
Courthouses
are public buildings. Because they must remain open to the public, emergency
management issues are complex. There is a balance to strike between ensuring
public access and providing a safe and secure environment. Court leaders and
staff can strike an appropriate balance and give themselves an advantage by
taking time to examine the courthouse (or building designs if the structure is
under construction) and to determine potential areas of vulnerabilities. What
are the most critical emergency management issues? Which areas should be
addressed immediately? Answers to these questions will help court officials
develop an effective emergency management plan and to make winning arguments
when trying to obtain additional resources.
Examples
Courts
have asked the United States Marshals Service, local law enforcement, and
local universities with programs in law enforcement to conduct security audits
of their facilities.
Some
courts maintain an incident reporting system and database to identify and
address specific problem areas. The database also can be helpful in seeking
funding.
Court
employees are good sources of information regarding potential vulnerable areas
of the courthouse. Where do they feel safe or not safe? Reaching out to the
staff also helps to raise the visibility and importance of emergency
management.
Resources
“Court
Security Manual.” State of Minnesota & Conference of Chief Justices,
1997. (See security checklist beginning on p. 2-3-1.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/MinnesotaCtSecurityManual.pdf
“Court
Security Incident Reporting Form.” Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, 1993. (Provides an example of an incident
reporting form.) http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/Forms/Documents/court-incid.pdf
“Measure
1.2.1: Courthouse Security Audit.” Commission on Trial Court Performance
Standards, 1995. (Includes National Sheriffs’ Association Physical
Security Checklist.) http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/Standards/stan_1.2.htm
United
States Marshals Service. (Includes address and telephone numbers of
district offices) http://www.usmarshals.gov/
Top
|
|
|
Create
and Practice an Emergency Response Plan
It
is important to have a plan in place in anticipation of various emergency
situations (e.g., breach of courthouse security, natural disaster, electrical
outage, bomb threat, or explosion). A court emergency management committee
consisting of court leadership, the court’s automation specialist, law
enforcement, the facilities manager, and other interested parties such as
representatives of the bar and members of the public is necessary to determine
the critical emergency management issues to address in the plan and the most
effective and least costly responses.
An
essential task for the committee is to identify who will make key decisions in
the event of a crisis. This will avoid turf battles or delayed or inconsistent
responses because the lines of responsibility are blurred.
Creating the
response plan is necessary but not sufficient. Regularly communicating with staff,
providing training, conducting drills, and testing equipment are also vital
components of an effective plan.
Examples
Some
states have an emergency management manual with templates to help local courts
create their plans. See, for example, Florida’s template for Continuity of
Operations Plan on p. 62 of “Keep the Courts Open” and New York's
"Facility Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan," both cited in resources
below. (If your state has a template to include in the resources cited below,
please forward to pcasey@ncsc.dni.us.)
In
addition to the overall plan, some courts create mini-documents customized for
specific departments and/or specific crises (e.g., fire, flood, electrical
outage). These smaller documents include the basic information each employee
needs to know in the event of an emergency and are more user-friendly than the
entire plan.
See, for example, New York's Employee Evacuation Checklist in Appendix C of
"Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning Manual" cited in
resources below.
Courts
conduct mock disaster drills to identify and address problems with the plan
and to maintain court staff interest in the plan.
See, for example, New York's Evacuation Drill Report in Appendix F of
"Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning Manual" cited in
resources below.
If
time and resources are a problem, consider training staff a little at a time.
One court developed materials specific to the needs of the custodian staff and
reviewed and discussed the information with the staff. It only took about 15 minutes, and the staff was very appreciative of, and later used, the
information.
Resources
“Contingency
Planning: COOP Self-Assessment Guide & Checklist.” Federal Executive
Branch. (Provides a checklist that can be used to develop a contingency plan.
Includes checklists for essential functions, authorities and delegations, alternative facilities, communications, program management, and
testing exercises.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/SelfAssessGuideChecklist.pdf
“Court
Security Manual.” State of Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges. (A
statewide
resource for enhancing court security. See courthouse contingency plans
beginning on p. 2-4-1and training outlines beginning on p. 12-1-1.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/C6NewThreats/MinnesotaCtSecurityManual.pdf
"Emergency
Preparedness and Response Planning Manual with Appendices." New York
State Unified Court System, March 2003. (A statewide planning guide that
identifies tasks and issues courts need to address to be prepared for a broad
range of emergencies.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/manual1.pdf
and http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/manual1-append.pdf
"Facility
Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan." New York State Unified Court
System, March 2003. (Provide a template for each court to prepare a
response plan in the event of an emergency.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials911/911/acrobat/26/template.pdf
“Keep
the Courts Open.” Final report of the Florida Supreme Court Workgroup on
Emergency Preparedness, March 28, 2002. (A statewide resource for courts to
plan for emergencies. See p. 62 for COOP template.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/FloridaFinalReport.pdf
“Occupant
Emergency Program Guide.” U.S. General Services Administration Public
Buildings Service, Federal Protective Service, March 2002. (Discusses
essential components of an occupant emergency plan.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/GSAOccupantEmergencyProgram.pdf
“Wisconsin
Courthouse Security Resource Center.” The Wisconsin Sheriff’s and Deputy
Sheriff’s Association, U.S. Marshal’s Office of the Western District of
Wisconsin, Director of State Courts, Office of the Chief Justice of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Fox Valley Technical College, 2000. (The Center
provides training, research, and technical assistance related to security. The
document includes Chapter 7 from Wisconsin "Courthouse Security Manual" that
discusses creating contingency safety and security plans.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/Wisconsinexcerpt.pdf
Top
|
|
|
Get
a Seat at the Table
Make
sure that the court or court system has a representative present in city,
county, or state emergency management meetings. Courts generally have not
actively engaged in reaching out to other government agencies (and some
agencies have not been open to court participation) to address emergency
management issues. As a consequence, courts may find themselves at the bottom
of a long list of priorities when city, county, and state emergency recovery
plans are enacted. It is important to understand which agencies are in charge
of emergency preparedness in your jurisdiction and to have a court staff
person with appropriate decision authority contact and meet with the
individuals in charge. If there are no regular communications among emergency
management officials in the jurisdiction, the court can be an advocate for
creating an ad hoc committee to coordinate efforts across the jurisdiction.
Examples
The
U.S. District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, found a very
receptive emergency management network when the chief judge began calling
emergency responders in the community. As a result, the court was part of a
mock drill, and local and state officials expressed gratitude to the court for
taking a leadership role.
State
officials in Florida made contacts with state emergency planning agencies to
facilitate contacts at the local level. In addition, the state office named an
emergency coordinating officer in each circuit and appellate court district
whose primary responsibility is to connect with the existing emergency
management network in the community.
Resources
“Communication
is Key in Court Security.” Amanda Murer, Report on Trends in the State
Courts, National Center for State Courts, 2002. (Touches on the importance
of communication with others in community when making a security plan. Also
gives ideas of how to improve court security plan without monetary support.) http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/Trends/Trends02MainPage.html
“Emergency
Management Guide for Business & Industry.” FEMA, pgs. 39-40.
(Discusses emergency planning with other community agencies.) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
“Keep
the Courts Open.” Final report of the Florida Supreme Court Workgroup on
Emergency Preparedness, March 28, 2002. (Discusses the importance of communication
and cooperation in planning for responses to threats and emergencies.)
http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/FloridaFinalReport.pdf
Office
of Domestic Preparedness, US Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp
. (Web site from the DOJ to help first responders
deal with incidents of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.)
State
Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management. (Includes state emergency
manager’s email address.) http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/statedr.shtm
Top
|
|
|
Develop
a Plan to Communicate Internally
The
court should develop alternative plans for communicating with staff in the
event of an emergency. Because different communication systems may fail
depending on the emergency, it is important to plan for various scenarios
(e.g., phone lines down, satellite connections blocked, internet unavailable).
During an emergency, some type of central command communication system is
critical. Conflicting messages from different sources will increase anxiety
and slow efforts to address an emergency.
Examples
Designated
court officials maintain an emergency contact list of all employees. Contact
information includes home address, phone number, beeper, cell number, and
email address, as appropriate. Managers and supervisors have a list of
emergency contact numbers for each staff person in their respective office or
department. A copy of the list is kept in the manager’s office and home.
“Phone
trees” are an example of a low-cost method to keep court staff informed
during the initial period following an emergency if the court’s regular
communication system is unavailable.
Designating
a central place to gather following an emergency helps court officials
determine who is missing.
Some
courts provide a laminated “emergency card” to carry in a wallet, purse,
or glove compartment. The card lists phone numbers each staff person
should call in the event of an emergency, the
court’s Web site, and television and radio stations that broadcast
information about the court during an emergency.
The cards are updated periodically to keep them current.
Resources
"Continuity
of Operations (COOP) Plan Coordination Draft.” Federal Executive
Branch, August 13, 2002. (See Annex L: Emergency Notification.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/ContinuityOperationsPlanFEbranch.pdf
“Emergency
Management Guide for Business & Industry.” FEMA, pgs. 31-32.
(Discusses emergency communications considerations.) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
“Emergency
Preparedness and Recovery Procedures Manual.” 11th Judicial
Circuit of Florida, Administrative Office of Courts, July 31, 2002. (See
section one on communications. Includes description of telephone tree.) http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kY226UodtBcJ:www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/EmergencyProceduresRecoveryManual.pdf+EmergencyProceduresRecoveryManual.pdf&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
“Keep
the Courts Open.” Final report of the Florida Supreme Court Workgroup on
Emergency Preparedness, March 28, 2002. (See p. 76 for employee
notification procedures during an emergency. Appendices E and F provide
employee profile forms and an emergency contact log to use during a crisis.)
http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/FloridaFinalReport.pdf
“You
Can Help Keep the Courthouse Safe” & “What is Suspicious.” Sample
handouts provided by Tina Rowe for 9-11 Summit panel on Emergency
Preparedness Planning: A Workshop, 2002. http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/RoweSampleHandout.pdf
Top
|
|
|
Develop
a Plan to Communicate Externally
Depending
on the emergency, courts may have to contact numerous other individuals who
are or could be affected by the crisis (e.g., attorneys, litigants, witnesses,
jurors, other justice system and human service agency staff who work with the
court, the general public). Courts should prepare a list of individuals who
might be affected by a court emergency and determine the best way to
communicate with them (e.g., work through the local bar to send a message to
attorneys; use the court’s Web site to provide information to the public).
As
is the case for internal communications, it is critical that external court
communications be consistent and accurate. The court’s leadership should
inform the communications point person what information is communicated, when,
and to whom. Messages should be operationally simple (e.g., how to contact the
court, whether cases will be heard, alternative locations for conducting
business) and provide a number or Web site to obtain more specific
information. Frequent updates as information is obtained will lessen the
public’s anxiety and facilitate the recovery process during an emergency.
Examples
Contact
information of individuals who will (1) provide information and feedback to
the court during an emergency and (2) help the court get its message out to
affected groups is maintained by the court manager and communications point
person and regularly updated.
During
the initial hours and days of a community-wide emergency, court information
may not be a priority for media outlets to provide. Courts in this position
have sought other means to communicate such as paying for an announcement in
local newspapers, using the court’s Web site to provide information,
maintaining an information hotline at the court, or providing a toll-free
number for court information, installing Internet phone lines, and asking
other branches of government that may have better access to the media to
include information about the courts in their briefings.
During
a crisis in Florida, the Supreme Court’s communications officer and marshall
work in the state’s Emergency Operations Center. The Center maintains
toll-free numbers for the public seeking information. Calls requesting court
information are routed to the court officers.
In
Puerto Rico, the state court administrator calls the bar president, the
attorney general, and the chief of police to provide information regarding the
operations of the courts. These officials subsequently inform their respective
staff.
Resources
“Emergency
Management Guide for Business & Industry.” FEMA, pgs. 41-41.
(Discusses emergency communications with the public.) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/bizindst.pdf
“The
Administration of Justice Under Emergency Conditions:
Lessons Following the Attack on the World Trade Center.” Oren Root,
Vera Institute of Justice, January 2002. (See recommendations regarding
communications on pgs. 25-26.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/C1TheAftermath/VeraInstituteLessonsFollowingAttack.pdf
Top
|
|
|
Don't
Let Resources Prevent Planning
Emergency
management is a core court activity. Courts cannot afford to wait until extra
resources become available before they start planning. Expensive new
technology and security consultants are not necessary to begin integrating the
importance of emergency management into the court’s culture.
Courts
can begin with low-cost planning activities and explore opportunities for
additional resources as the planning process unfolds. As courts reach out to
other community and government entities to create an effective plan, they may
learn of expertise that resides in the community and funding sources they do
not normally access.
Courts
also should include stakeholders and members of the public on emergency
planning committees. This not only insures that the public’s voice is
included in the plan but also creates community advocates for the plan. The
court’s request for funding to implement the plan is likely to be more
effective coming from a member of the public. Members of the public arguing
for funding to safeguard the courthouse reinforces the idea that the funds are
needed for the protection of the public as well as for judges and court staff.
Examples
9-11
Summit
participants reported that costs associated with planning were minimal. In
addition, they noted that some improvements, such as developing or modifying
outdated policies and procedures and compiling emergency contact information
for each employee, also could be accomplished with limited resources. Police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly of New York City suggested giving all court staff a
kit with a whistle, mask, and
flashlight—low-cost items that could be very helpful in a number of
emergency situations.
The
Wisconsin Courthouse Security Training Program was accomplished through the
joint efforts of the Office of the Chief Justice, Director of State Courts
Office, Wisconsin Sheriff’s and Deputy Sheriff’s Association, the U.S.
Marshal’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Office
of Justice Assistance, and the Fox Valley Technical College. With the help of
their law enforcement partners, the Wisconsin Supreme Court obtained grant
funds from the Office of Justice Assistance, and the Technical College helped
develop, deliver, and evaluate a “train the trainers” curriculum for 400
county-level leaders across the state. Prior to this effort, the court had not
participated in such a comprehensive partnership. New skills and resources
were developed using this cooperative model.
Training
and technical assistance in emergency management may be available from local,
state or federal sources
outside of the judicial branch. For example, one or more community agencies may offer
emergency management training and would be willing to have court
representatives participate. Expertise in emergency management also may be
available through local law enforcement or local colleges that offer programs
in law enforcement and emergency management. These local agencies also may
have access to additional resources through their wider emergency management
networks.
For example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Department of
Justice, provides funds to each state to address specific equipment, training,
and technical assistance needs to help state and local jurisdictions better
respond to incidents of domestic terrorism. ODP and the Naval
Postgraduate School also offer a master's degree program in Homeland Defense
and Security for government employees. Individuals can determine if they
are eligible for the program by visiting the Homeland Security Leadership
Development Web site at
http://www.chds.us/public.php.
Resources
"Homeland
Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, Volume I: Overview and
Doctrine." Office for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, March 2003. (Chapter 1 provides a description of the State
Homeland Security Grant Program.) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/HSEEPv1,pdf
“Wisconsin
Courthouse Security Resource Center.” The Wisconsin Sheriff’s and Deputy
Sheriff’s Association, U.S. Marshal’s Office of the Western District of
Wisconsin, Director of State Courts, Office of the Chief Justice of the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Fox Valley Technical College, 2000. (Example of a
partnership that provides training, research, and technical assistance related
to court security.) http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/27/P3%26C10EmergencyPreparednessPlans/Wisconsinexcerpt.pdf
“Enduring
Values in Changing Times.” Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Annual
Meeting of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference, 2002 State of the Judiciary—October
16, 2002, p. 8. (Brief description of growth of
Wisconsin Courthouse Training Program.)
http://www.wicourts.gov/news/archives/2002/chief101602.htm
Top
|
|
|
|
A pdf version
of this material is available on-line at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Comm_CtSecEMfCtsPub.pdf
|
|
|
|
National Center for
State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone (800)616-6109 Fax (757)564-2022
Questions or Comments - email
webmaster@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2002 The National Center for State Courts. All Rights
Reserved.
|
|
|
