Criminal Justice
Lawyer in Trouble for Refusing to Take Off Watch for Courthouse Scanner
Posted Oct 30, 2009 8:26 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The Madera County Sheriff’s department in California says it’s not going to let a Fresno defense lawyer off the hook for refusing to take off his watch for a courthouse security scanner.
High-profile lawyer Richard Berman is accused of refusing to put his watch on the scanner belt, the Fresno Bee reports. "This is a $30,000 watch," Berman reportedly said. "I am not going to take it off." Sheriff’s police also claim Berman slipped past a guard who tried to block Berman’s entrance to the courthouse with her outstretched arms.
Sheriff's spokeswoman Erica Stuart told the Fresno Bee that the department plans to ask the district attorney to file a complaint against Berman for battery and avoiding courthouse security. A report of the Sept. 2 incident has also been forwarded to the state bar.
Berman told the Bee the incident is "silly, very, very silly."
Defense lawyers have criticized the courthouse security policy because prosecutors can evade the scanners by entering through their offices in the same building.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
R
Oct 30, 2009 9:00 AM CST
I think the lawyer’s right. In fact, I think he should have his $30,000 watch permanently implanted in a well-cushioned softly-lined body orifice to guard against it being stolen, lost or scratched.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Oct 30, 2009 9:24 AM CST
I’ve been to Fresno, and to Madera County. The odds of anyone in either place owning a $30,000 watch, let alone wearing one to court, are infinitesimal.
My proposal = have an appraiser on hand at the lawyer’s arraignment. If he told the truth about the watch, he skates. If not, he gets no bail.
Flag this comment
Edwin
Oct 30, 2009 10:57 AM CST
On the one hand I’m not wasting any sympathy on a lawyer who walks around wearing a watch more valuable than my car. On the other hand, the department is being petty for not allowing him to walk through with his hand held out. Don’t these people have anything more important to do?
Flag this comment
Kory
Oct 30, 2009 12:45 PM CST
Of course defense attorneys should be screened for security, they are not “law enforcement officers” as state law designates most prosecutors. Security guards should treat all non-law enforcement officers the same, and not carve out special treatment for the attorneys who represent drug dealers and who can afford a $30K watch. Did we not learn anything from Oklahoma City & 9/11?? Security in courthouses and government office buildings is not a joke - and what they do IS important. Does anyone remember the Atlanta shooting of a judge? Heck, law enforcement officials have even discovered firearms that are disguised as a cell phone. 9/11 involved box cutters. The attorney is an idiot and he should be charged - just like anyone else - and the presiding judge should consider taking action to send a strong message - no exceptions for attorneys.
Flag this comment
Big Legal Money
Oct 30, 2009 2:13 PM CST
$30,000 watch? I need to practice the kind of law he is! I can’t afford a $300 watch.
Flag this comment
fed up
Oct 30, 2009 8:14 PM CST
re#4, “Of course defense attorneys should be screened for security” How true! My former lawyer threw a 20 oz cup of coffee on opposing counsel during a deposition. So take their coffee away too!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Oct 30, 2009 10:14 PM CST
A guy is way too gung ho when he won’t let anyone relieve him of his watch. As far as the guard with outstretched arms, though, maybe he thought she was trying to embrace him (due to his expensive watch, perhaps) and felt that was inappropriate. I myself resent being groped and fondled by female security personnel, and when they do it for more than five or ten minutes, I ask them to desist.
Flag this comment
Harikumar
Oct 31, 2009 1:23 AM CST
Security persons should first be made aware of the meaning and purpose of security check. They are doing it in the leteral meaning. This is really a silly matter for which the precious of courts and other public offices should not be wasted.
Flag this comment
William Bednarz
Oct 31, 2009 3:46 AM CST
Sorry to see another sheifff department dismantled - well not really I’ld like a front row seat ......Once he identified himself correctly the sheriff is out of line - Hmmm, why does it sound like fun to me ?.?.?
Flag this comment
K.
Nov 1, 2009 5:18 PM CST
In some courthouses where I’ve worked, anyone with a bar card gets to show their bar card and skip the security checkpoint. And in the courthouses where that isn’t the practice, I often talk at length (while being wanded) about how it should be the practice.
(But then this fellow with the $30K watch would just gripe about the hassle of having to show his bar card, wanna bet?)
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.