Briefs: Courthouse security at issue in CA+.

• Date: 13 March 2002

Byline: David Ziemer

Courthouse security at issue in California

Eileen Zelig told anyone who would listen that her ex-husband was dangerously unstable. He had threatened several times to kill her, she said, warning that he might do so in the very hallways of the Los Angeles County Courthouse.

On Sept. 1, 1995, Dr. Harry Zelig did just that, pulling out a revolver and gunning down his former wife on the second floor of the downtown courthouse while both were preparing for a child- and spousal-support hearing.

Last week, lawyers for her children went before the California Supreme Court to argue that Los Angeles County - which didn't have metal detectors in its courthouses seven years ago - should be held liable for not providing reasonable security for a foreseeable act.

The county is defending itself, in part, by calling the murder a random, unforeseeable event and arguing that California law immunizes public entities from liability except in a few situations specifically authorized by statute.

The county and its amicus curiae supporters fear that a favorable ruling for the Zelig children - even in an age when metal detectors block virtually all courthouse doors - could "dramatically expand the potential liability" of government agencies and send security budgets soaring into the stratosphere. Their opponents, meanwhile, say the public's safety is foremost and that it's important to let people - especially domestic violence victims required to appear in court - know they will be protected.

The couple's children sued in 1996, saying Los Angeles County had failed to provide a reasonably safe environment in its courthouse and should have known there was a risk of danger, especially in family court and in light of their mother's frequently expressed concerns.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias tossed out the suit. But in 1999 the Court of Appeals stunned county governments by saying they could...