In December 2015 the New Jersey legislature saw movement on the creation of a Court Security Enhancement Fund for the first time in a five years. Although the 2015 session is set to adjourn in the coming days, it is possible the bill will come back for the 2016/2017 session (NJ and VA operate “off-cycle”, starting their sessions in even-numbered years).
First proposed in 2010/2011 (AB 881) and 2012/2013 (SB 652), and reintroduced in different iterations in the 2014/2015 session (AB 4845 / SB 663 and the similar AB 4868) the bills all contain the same basic elements.
- The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had previously adopted court security standards.
- The AOC would be responsible for distribution of money from the Court Security Enhancement Fund to local governments “to supplement local government funding for the procurement of security equipment and security-related structural modifications necessary to achieve the court security standards.“
- Addition fees (different bills vary on amounts) would be added to various civil, criminal and appellate proceedings to paid into the Fund.
SB 663 as amended was approved by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee on December 10, 2015 on a 10-3 vote.
Other states have attempted to create similar funds in the last several years.
- Indiana: Bills introduced in 2014 and 2015 and discussed here would have created $1 or $2 fees in all civil and criminal cases. The revenue generated would have been controlled by the Supreme Court (House version) or county commissions (Senate version). Neither proposal was enacted.
- Minnesota: A 2012 bill discussed here would have allowed counties to impose a fee up to $15 in all civil and criminal cases to pay for court security. It was heard in committee but never enacted.
- Wyoming: While the state already has an advisory Court Security Commission under the Supreme Court the Commission has no ability to allocate funds. A proposal in 2014 would have created a $10 million Court Security Fund under the Commission’s control to make supplemental grants to localities, provide the local government could come up with matching funds. The plan was ultimately shelved in favor of one-time allocations for 2 specific counties. The plan was discussed here and here.