The United States Marshals Service Judicial Security Process

Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2007-010
September 2007
Office of the Inspector General

Appendix II
Results of the OIG’S Judicial Survey

  1. Please indicate the type of judgeship you hold. (n=712)

    2. District: 41%/295, Magistrate: 29%/205, Bankruptcy: 18%/129, Circuit: 10%/74, Court of Federal Claims: 1%/6, Court of International Trade: 0.5%/3.

  2. What do you believe poses the greatest risk to federal judges? (n=696)

    3. The known threat (stated or implied: 19%, Unknown general danger associated with being a judge: 76%, Other:5%.

  3. How secure or insecure do you feel from job-related threats or danger at the courthouse, away from the courthouse, and at home? (n=712)

    4. Location Very
    Secure     		Some-
    what
    Secure     		Neither
    Secure or
    Insecure     		Some-
    what
    Insecure     		Very
    Insecure
    At the Courthouse 431 197 28 29 11
    Away from the Courthouse 91 212 264 97 33
    At Home 114 316 119 123 21

  4. In your opinion, which types of judicial proceedings generally pose a high risk to the personal safety of federal judges?

    5. Civil Matters

    Type of Case Number of Responses
    Admiralty 2
    Animal Rights 109
    Antitrust 1
    Bankruptcy 212
    Civil rights 298
    Contracts 18
    Deportation 82
    Energy Allocations 1
    Environmental Matters 68
    Foreclosure 205
    Forfeiture and Penalty 126
    Freedom of Information 27
    Labor Suits/Employment 172
    Land Condemnation 62
    Personal Injury 36
    Pro Se 559
    Product Liability 7
    Real Property 29
    Social Security 66
    Tax 160
    Tort Issues 44
    Trademark/Patent 2
    Other 72

    Criminal Matters

    Type of Case Number of Responses
    Armed Robbery 150
    Assault 122
    Auto Theft 17
    Burglary 32
    Counterfeiting 22
    Embezzlement 18
    Escape 156
    Espionage 92
    Extortion 83
    Firearms Violation 200
    Forgery 14
    Fraud 29
    Gang Activity 474
    Homicide 151
    Kidnapping 108
    Larceny/Theft 17
    Narcotics 337
    Obstruction of Justice 116
    Organized Crime 363
    Perjury 16
    Pro Se 385
    Public Corruption 37
    Sex Offenses 42
    Terrorism 321
    Treason 78
    Unarmed Robbery 19
    Other 41

  5. Throughout your career as a federal judge, have you ever received a threat?

    6. Yes: 68.4%/481, No: 31.6%/222.

  6. In calendar year 2005, how many threats did you receive?

    7. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    None 254 53
    1 125 26
    2-5 96 20
    6-10 0 0
    More than 10 3 1
    Total 478 100%

  7. Please estimate how many of the threats you received in calendar year 2005 were related to cases on your docket and how many were not specifically related to these cases. If none, enter “0.”

    8. Threats Average number of
    threats received
    Threats related to cases on my docket 2 (n=197)
    Threats not specifically related to cases on my docket 1 (n=87)
    Threats not known if related to cases on my docket 1 (n=61)

  8. Of the threats you received during calendar year 2005, how many did you report to the USMS?

    9. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    All 174 78
    Most 14 6
    Some 11 5
    Few 4 2
    None 19 9
    Total 222 100%

  9. For threats in calendar year 2005 that you did not report to the USMS, to whom did you report the threats that you received?

    10. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Official 3 7
    Local Law Enforcement Official 5 12
    Don’t Know 23 53
    Other 12 28
    Total 43 100%

  10. Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not report all the threats you received in calendar year 2005 to the USMS.

    11. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    I did not think that the threat posed a real danger. 34 75
    I was not familiar with the reporting procedures for threats. 1 1
    The threat reporting process was too cumbersome or inconvenient. 0 0
    I did not want additional protection. 0 0
    Other 11 24
    Total 46 100%

  11. Please rate the performance of the USMS in each of the following tasks:

    12. Tasks Very
    Good     		Good Ade-
    quate     		Poor Very
    Poor     		N/A
    Initially responds to a threat with the appropriate protective measures. 150 38 14 7 0 10
    Keeps you informed during the protective investigation process. 126 36 30 16 2 10
    Informs you of the final outcome of the protective investigation process, including additional actions or measures required to ensure your safety. 11 42 27 18 3 10

  12. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the performance of the Judicial Security Inspector (JSI) assigned your district or circuit?
    (n=686)

    13. Very satisfied: 50%, somewhat satisfied: 15%, neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 18%, somewhat dissatisfied: 3%, very dissatisfied: 3%.

  13. Please explain the reason(s) for your response to Question 12.

    14. The responses were grouped into 11 categories. About half the respondents provided positive comments by describing their JSI as knowledgeable, helpful, and responsive. However, about 100 judges said that they did not know who the JSI in their district is.

  14. In calendar year 2005, did you receive a security briefing or other instruction from the USMS concerning security measures?

    15. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 479 70
    No 158 23
    Received instruction, but uncertain of provider 46 7
    Total 683 100%

  15. In calendar year 2005, did you request a security briefing from the USMS?

    16. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 4 2
    No 162 98
    Total 166 100%

  16. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate was the security briefing or instruction concerning security measures that you received from the USMS? (n=479)

    17. More than adequate: 37%, generally adequate: 54%, neither adequate nor inadequate: 6%, generally inadequate: 2%, very inadequate: 1%.

  17. Have you completed a Judicial Security Profile for the USMS?

    18. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 575 83
    No 116 17
    Total 691 100%

  18. Please indicate the reason(s) why you have not completed a Judicial Security Profile for the USMS. Check all that apply.

    19. Reasons Number of Responses
    No need/Insufficient threat against me. 30
    Have not been asked to complete a Judicial Security profile by the USMS. 15
    Have concerns about the security of my personal information. 34
    Other (e.g., too much detail needed on form, no time to complete it, USMS misplaced the last one) 54

  19. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the performance of the court security officers (CSO) that provide courtroom security? (n=692)

    20. Very satisfied: 61%, somewhat satisfied: 30%, neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 3%, somewhat dissatisfied: 4%, very dissatisfied: 2%.

  20. In your opinion, how adequate or inadequate is the number of Deputy U.S. Marshals in your district or circuit for providing the security services necessary to protect the judicial process?

    21. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    More than Adequate 80 12
    Generally Adequate 361 53
    Neither Adequate nor Inadequate 62 9
    Generally Inadequate 135 20
    Very Inadequate 43 6
    Total 681 100%

  21. Please rank from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important) the following measures that you believe the USMS should implement to further improve judicial security.

    22. Tasks Number of Respondents per Ranking
    First Second Third Fourth Fifth
    Improve intelligence collection and analysis capability 233 131 104 82 71
    Provide additional protective investigation training for Deputy Marshals 46 83 201 172 116
    Improve analysis of federal, state, and local threat databases for relevant information 97 204 136 117 64
    Provide additional protection equipment or technological capabilities 112 134 117 164 91
    Increase the security presence in courtrooms 146 70 61 77 269

  22. Do you have an alarm system provided by the USMS installed in your home?

    23. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 450 65
    No 238 35
    Total 688 100%

  23. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the home alarm system provided by the USMS? (n=454)

    24. Very satisfied: 62%, somewhat satisfied: 26%, neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 6%, somewhat dissatisfied: 5%, very dissatisfied: 1%.

  24. Please provide comments or suggestions you have about the home alarm system provided by the USMS.

    25. Judges were generally satisfied with the home alarms they received, but there were areas where some judges noted a need for improvements. One of the more common suggestions was that USMS form partnerships with local police to ensure an appropriate response when an alarm goes off in a home. There were also concerns about continued funding to monitor the alarms and technical issues related to the model of alarm systems that was installed.

  25. Please indicate the primary reason why you do not have an alarm system from the USMS installed in your home.

    26. Reason Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    I have requested it, but it has not been installed yet. 47 31
    I have other security measures already in place. 5 3
    No need/Insufficient threat against me. 40 26
    Other 58 39
    Total 150 100%

  26. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the performance of the USMS in protecting federal judges? (n=686)

    27. Very satisfied: 55%, somewhat satisfied: 32%, neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 7%, somewhat dissatisfied: 4%, very dissatisfied: 1%.

  27. Please provide additional comments or concerns you have about the USMS’s protection of federal judges, including its handling of security briefings and other JSI responsibilities.

    28. Overall, judges were very complimentary about the protection provided by the USMS. USMS staff was characterized as professional, competent, and dedicated. Many judges said that more resources (e.g., money, deputies) are needed in their district and that USMS should be more proactive in terms of identifying potential threats. Concerns were also expressed about the safety of their respective courthouses and off-site security.


« Previous Table of Contents Next »