Humboldt Supervisors Vote to End Courthouse Screening After Funding Shortfall

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to end entrance screening at the county courthouse entrances on Fourth Street and Fifth Street, citing a funding shortfall after the Superior Court told the county in July it could no longer pay its share of the costs. The screening covered two public entrances with X-ray machines, metal detectors and private security screeners that the court had funded since 2012.

Since 2012 the Superior Court covered approximately 83 percent of entrance-screening expenses while the Sheriff’s Office covered roughly 17 percent, a funding split county officials and the sheriff say can no longer be sustained. Sheriff William Honsal told local media the court “only want[s] to pay about $7,000 a month, which is roughly half of what it takes for them to do their obligations of court security,” and said the sheriff’s office “currently don't have the budget to continue court security at the current staffing levels.”

Presiding Judge Kelly Neel addressed the Board of Supervisors at the public meeting and raised visitor-safety concerns tied to the courthouse’s multi-use function, which houses county administrative offices and the supervisors’ chambers. The Times-Standard quotes her saying, “We have zero funds from an entrance screening fund because it does not exist,” and the KRCRTV transcript captures her warning: “I cannot imagine how anyone could take seriously the notion that it would be appropriate in this multi-use building where we have victims of crime, we have children, we have people that are so vulnerable access this building not just for the courts but for everyone as say we're just going to get rid of weapon screening.”

Attorneys in the community have flagged “challenging legal issues” arising from the proposed security changes, and the Times-Standard reported anticipated litigation against the county. The supervisors’ unanimous vote to end screening does not yet include a firm shutdown date; multiple outlets report the timeline for stopping services has not been finalized.

Trial-court security functions provided by 12 sheriff’s deputies — courtroom security, in-custody movement and judicial protection — are mandated by law and funded separately, but that funding gap is squeezing the sheriff’s budget. Regina Fuller, deputy director of financial and support services for the sheriff’s department, said the county “receive[s] approximately $1.4 million from the state, and our payroll for those 12 deputies to secure that second floor, on average, is $1.8 million. Our general fund is already kicking in $400,000 approximately per year just to maintain the security on the second floor.” The Board directed county staff, the courts and the Sheriff’s Office to lobby the state for additional funding, and the Sheriff’s Office must present a new security plan to the Board by May.

A local blog, JohnChiv, posted on Jan. 20, 2026 claiming that “funding has been ‘found’” the prior Friday and that the county was “planning on renewing the contract for another year,” and the blogger reported three private security guards who had given notice still plan to leave. That blog claim conflicts with the mainstream reporting of the Board’s vote and remains unverified in public records and official statements.

Ending screening would remove X-ray and metal-detector checkpoints at the Fourth and Fifth Street public entrances, directly affecting courthouse visitors, victims, jurors and county staff who enter through those doors. With the Board’s vote complete, the dispute has shifted to whether the state will provide additional funding and whether litigation over the security change will proceed.