The use of personal electronic devices inside the Butler County government center and courthouse may be further regulated.

County President Judge Thomas Doerr recently sought input from other officials about restricting individuals from photographing, video recording or audio recording inside the two buildings without authorization.

Already prohibited is the use of personal electronic devices in any courtroom.

Tom Holman, deputy court administrator, said there is no imminent change for visitors to the county buildings.

“We’re always looking for ways to increase security without compromising individuals’ rights,” Holman said. “This is merely a topic of discussion.”

He stressed nothing is set in stone.

“We’re working on a policy,” Holman said. “One that would make sense. We aren’t there yet.”

Holman said concerns about use of personal electronic devices include taping prospective jurors for a trial.

“The potential for harassment is incredible,” he said.

Sheriff Mike Slupe agreed the issue should be reviewed.

“It’s not something that’s going to go away,” Slupe said.

Commissioner Dale Pinkerton said if there are security issues caused by people using electronic devices in county buildings, then a new policy may be needed.

Commissioner Jim Eckstein criticized the proposal, saying it violates people’s civil rights.

Eckstein said the proposed policy is too broad, affecting areas unrelated to security.

“What jurisdiction does the court have on other floors,” he said about floors in the government center that don’t have courtrooms or court offices.

Vic Walczak, legal director the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said the concerns of such a policy would be if the restrictions infringe on public access to government.

Walczak said the ACLU wants looser restriction of electronic devices in government buildings, such as allowing media cameras during court proceedings.

“We think it should be allowed in the courtroom,” he said.

Eckstein questioned why the proposal already was written in the form of a proposed court order if its implementation wasn’t imminent.

Holman said the proposal was put in that form because it was based on another county’s model.

“What form it ends up taking remains to be seen,” he said.