News Photo by Julie Riddle A sign outside the 26th Circuit Court courtroom doors in Alpena warns visitors that cell phones are not permitted inside.

ALPENA — The dings and buzzes of two phones disrupted court Tuesday morning, despite a warning from the bailiff to turn them off or put them on vibrate.

A public hearing in Lansing this morning will invite discussion about a proposed change to administrative court rules to explicitly allow the use of cellular phones, laptops, and other electronic devices — as well as prohibit certain uses — in a courthouse.

The proposed change would allow anyone to use portable electronic devices in a courtroom to retrieve or to store information, to access the internet, and to send and receive text messages or information.

Additionally, the change would allow members of the public to photograph public court documents in a clerk’s office, a practice which is currently prohibited. Most local county clerk’s offices charge a fee of about $1 per page to provide copies of official documents.

The proposal is intended to make policies more consistent from one court to another and to broaden the ability of litigants to use their devices in support of their court cases, according to a memo by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Currently in Michigan, each court makes its own decision about the presence of technology in courtrooms.

In most Northeast Michigan courtrooms, including in Alpena, Presque Isle, and Alcona counties, a posted sign indicates that cell phones are prohibited.

Phones are often in evidence in the courtroom, anyway, with varying degrees of enforcement if one is spotted or emits sound during proceedings.

In the Alpena County District Court, where the posted sign says phones must be silenced, Judge Thomas LaCross will typically give the owner of a ringing phone an admonishing look, which he said is usually adequate to prompt a volley of apologies and a turned-off phone. Second or third offenses are met with a more stern verbal admonition.

“We try to maintain order in the court, and one of the ways it’s challenged is cell phones,” LaCross said. “We have a wonderful, open system of jurisprudence in our country. And that’s a great, great value. But it’s not unlimited.”

The official sanctioning of phones in the courtroom will only further the disruptions that phones already cause, LaCross said.

Plus, electronic recordings by people in the galley, with snippets of the proceedings — sometimes with muffled or blurred sound — taken out of context, could present an inaccurate picture of the truth, LaCross said.

Members of the media are permitted to make a formal request if they wish to capture a photograph or video of court. The request may be refused by the presiding judge or either party in the case at hand.

The proposed changes to court rules still do not permit photography or video recording in a courtroom by members of the public without permission of the court.

Muting phones would be required by the change in policy, and texting or otherwise electronically communicating with courtroom participants, including attorneys, defendants, or jurors, would be prohibited, as would phone calls.

One local attorney, Dave Funk, of Alpena, feels strongly that phones are disrespectful to the work that is being done in the room. Clients who are there to engage in their own defense would be better served if focused on conversations with their attorney, not on electronic conversations, Funk said.

Though sometimes using his phone for on-the-fly legal research, Funk said he generally turns his device off before entering the courtroom.

Monday, during a hearing day in Alpena’s 26th Circuit Court, a cell phone sounded loudly. The judge asked sternly whose phone was turned on. The ringtone, it turned out, was coming from the phone of a defense attorney, evoking smiles from the galley and a renewed reminder from the bailiff to silence all cell phones.

Julie Riddle can be reached at 989-358-5693, jriddle@thealpenanews.com or on Twitter @jriddleX.