DOVER-FOXCROFT – Two walk-through metal detectors have been warehoused for months at the District Court in Dover-Foxcroft yet courtroom security remains a big concern of Piscataquis County officials.

Donna Runnels, a victim-witness advocate, said earlier this fall that the fact that no one is checked for weapons on entering the courtrooms, coupled with the cramped District Court quarters where defendants and their accusers sit near one another, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Similar concerns were raised Tuesday in a letter to the Piscataquis County commissioners from Richard Brown of the Community Corrections Advisory Board.

Brown said courtroom safety is a “very compelling issue and needs serious attention.” The system as it presently exists can place witnesses and court personnel at risk because of the proximity of victims and witnesses, and commitments of security staff that take them out of the courtroom, he wrote.

Although the security devices were purchased by the state as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Piscataquis County Sheriff John Goggin said Tuesday that it likely will be an emotional case that will erupt in violence.

“I’m more concerned about the explosiveness of a child custody hearing inside this courthouse or a domestic or a divorce,” he said during the meeting.

Those concerns prompted the county commissioners to request a meeting on Feb. 17 with James “Ted” Glessner, the state court administrator.

Glessner and the commissioners have in the past couple of years discussed the crowded courtroom conditions in the facility, which is owned by the county and leased to the state. An architect was hired by the state to provide some options to address the need for a new courtroom facility, but no decision has been made about which option to pursue.

The options for a new building under consideration are: that it be constructed by the county, with space leased to the state; that it be state-constructed with the county paying for Superior Court space as counties presently are required to do; or that it be constructed by a private contractor and leased.

These discussions, however, have done little to address the immediate need for courtroom security.

The walk-through security devices are not installed because the state, which is responsible for courtroom security, lacks sufficient funds to operate the equipment, Goggin said during the meeting. It is the responsibility of the state, not the county, to provide security in the courtrooms, he said. Currently, the state identifies what is needed for security and pays the Sheriff’s Department to carry out those duties, he said.

One suggestion aired Tuesday is that District Court proceedings be moved next door to Superior Court, which is used infrequently but is more secure.

“It’s a shame it’s not being utilized more,” Goggin said.