A spokesperson for the city of Richmond says lockers outside the John Marshall Courts Building will be reinstalled within the next few weeks. But legal and justice advocates say courthouses across Virginia should consider doing away with bans on electronic devices, so the lockers — which are often damaged or out of service — won’t be necessary.
In April 2018, The New York Times turned a spotlight on Richmond, which at the time had the second-highest eviction rate in America. In case Richmond’s top spot on that list wasn’t upsetting enough, the story unearthed another problem that’s long plagued courtgoers in Virginia’s capital city.
Many summoned to court for eviction hearings learned, while already in line at security, that they couldn’t bring cellphones or other electronic devices into the building with them. People who were short on time or didn’t have a car to stash them in, turned instead to a well-known Richmond courthouse hack: tossing phones into the bushes to avoid missing their hearings.
People have also reportedly dug holes outside the courthouse or run to the Library of Virginia to hide a phone behind books on a shelf. Others have just gone home.
Megan Hoburg, a staff attorney on Central Virginia Legal Aid Society’s housing team, said she had a client who recently hid her phone in the bushes before entering the building.
“We were in there for almost three hours. The phone was no longer in the bush,” Hoburg said. “And I think that’s because folks know that people will stow away electronics or whatever they can’t bring in, in those bushes right by the courthouse, and they kind of watch them.”
Shortly after the Times report, Richmond Sheriff Antionette Irving enacted a policy allowing visitors to check phones at the front desk with sheriff’s deputies. Later, a bank of metal lockers that used personalized key codes to open and close was installed outside the entrance.
But those lockers are now gone. The city’s website recently was updated to say that visitors should leave electronic devices in their cars. Until Thursday afternoon, it referenced the lockers.
Sarah Pentecost went to court for a hearing on Tuesday with a smartwatch and two cellphones in tow. She was under the impression that she’d be able to lock up her items. She rode the bus there; she has a broken foot.
But deputies did not offer Pentecost the option to leave her devices at the front desk.
“They tell you just to put it in your car, which is ridiculous,” she said. “Standing in that line, it seemed like the biggest holdup is people bringing in electronics and having people tell them that they can’t.”
“They were a broken record, just saying it over and over,” she added.
Luckily, Pentecost’s partner was able to leave work to come get her devices.
Attorneys, court employees and sometimes reporters are permitted to have phones in the building. But others are faced with sorting out this problem on the fly.
VPM News reached out to the Richmond Sheriff’s Office to ask about why the lockers were removed and what visitors should do with their devices, but was directed to city spokesperson Tamara Jenkins.
Jenkins did not respond to questions Thursday but stated the lockers would be coming back. She did not provide an exact time frame.
Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Colette McEachin, whose office is at the courthouse, said in an email that the lockers were removed because they had been vandalized or damaged.
“It was less costly to remove them than to repair or replace them,” McEachin said.
Legal advocates said this isn’t just a Richmond problem. Courts across Virginia create their own policies for electronic devices and options for visitors to store them if they’re banned.
District and circuit courts are guided by “model policies” from the Supreme Court of Virginia, but are not required to adopt them.
In December 2018, SCOVA adopted policies for the use of portable electronic devices in courthouses and courtrooms. In the document, the court recognized a ban on cell phones in the courtroom is more than an inconvenience.
“Policies barring portable electronic devices may prevent self-represented litigants or other court users from effectively presenting evidence in their cases, successfully accessing court resources or information, or communicating with others while in the courthouse,” the policy reads. “By authorizing the possession and use of portable electronic devices in courthouses for evidentiary and other legitimate purposes, the Model Policy improves access to justice and judicial efficiency by establishing known processes and procedures.”
Jay Speer, CEO of Virginia Poverty Law Center, echoed the court’s conclusion.
“We think this is a really important access-to-justice issue. And we hope the courts will reconsider these policies of banning cell phones,” Speer said.
Many courts across the state have never had a secure place to stow electronics.
Connie Stevens, an attorney and spokesperson with VPLC, recalled following a team of legal aid attorneys two years ago to Henrico General District Court for a slate of eviction hearings.
“I had just been to a courthouse in Norfolk where there were lockers, so I hadn’t thought twice about taking my own cell phone in,” Stevens said.
She was able to put her phone in her car. But she noticed that some people there for hearings came by bus — or were dropped off.
“I decided it would probably be more helpful for me to hold people’s phones. I ended up holding three or four,” Stevens said. “It’s not pleasant to turn your cell phone over to a stranger. I thought it was pretty tragic to watch. I had no idea this was happening.”
CVLAS’ Hoburg said people may have to advocate for themselves and ask for accommodations, including asking the judge for permission to bring a phone in for a hearing if they have evidence to share with the court.
“I also get the flip side of the coin,” Hoburg said. “We want our courts to be safe and show respect to the court. But I think there’s a world that’s possible where we can show an appropriate level of respect to the court while still allowing individuals to access the court system with their phone and ultimately, ideally, promote accessibility.”
