The Twitter exemption

In February of this year, district attorney Bonnie Dumanis logged on to Twitter to post pictures she took from her phone from inside the jury lounge.

"Jury duty today! In the jury lounge with my fellow San Diegans doing our civic duty," wrote San Diego County's top prosecutor.

The U-T got wind of the tweet and wrote a short article on Dumanis’s day in court.

"District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis tweeted a photo inside the jury lounge in San Diego Superior Court where she and others waited to hear if they would be called into a courtroom and perhaps selected for a trial."

For your everyday citizen, using a camera phone in court is not only illegal but could lead to a physical confrontation with sheriff’s deputies.

According to a general order adopted by San Diego County Superior Court administrators, "no one except authorized court and court security personnel may use any camera-enabled or video-enabled device including but not limited to cameras, camcorders, cell phones, PDA's, tablets, iPods, iPads, and watches to take pictures or videos in any courthouse facilities or courtrooms..."

Last month, the Citizen's Law Enforcement Review Board dismissed a woman's claim that she was assaulted by a deputy for taking video on her phone inside the courthouse.

"The complainant reported that she had been assaulted by Deputy 1 in an elevator at the San Diego County Courthouse. Deputy 1 contacted the complainant when she was observed using her cell phone to video inside the courthouse. This was a violation of a court directive, and when instructed to cease filming, the complainant refused, becoming loud and disruptive to courthouse operations. Deputy 1 led the complainant into an elevator and subsequently out of the building, but denied that he 'assaulted' the complainant or used any level of force during his contact with her. A witness deputy was present in the elevator where the alleged assault took place, but denied that Deputy 1 or any other deputy assaulted the complainant or used any level of force against her."

The allegation was dismissed for a lack of video evidence.

"The elevators of the courthouse do not have interior cameras, and the complainant failed to provide cell phone video that purportedly supported her allegation. There was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation."

——

But that wasn't the only case of deputies cracking down on picture-taking in the courthouse. The board also dismissed a claim by a woman who was forced to delete a picture she took in court.

"The aggrieved stated she was approached by a deputy and told she must delete a photograph from her cell phone which had been taken in the Courthouse. Deputy 1 acknowledged he directed the aggrieved to delete a photograph taken in the Courthouse from her cell phone. The aggrieved did not have authority to take photographs in the Courthouse, and Deputy 1 directed the aggrieved to delete the photograph rather than confiscate the telephone. The evidence showed that the act did occur, but was lawful, justified and proper."

——>(addendum: 10/22 9:40 a.m.)