BRENTWOOD — It's a technology Superior Court has had for years.

Prosecutors and jail officials believe it could save the county significant money and even improve security. Court officials say it seems too pricey and not very useful.

It's video-conferencing — a tool that is used for arraignments, probation violations and other brief, yet mandatory, court appearances.

The county jail spends about $275 per month to operate its system. So far, it is hooked up to district courts in Salem and Portsmouth, two of the busiest in the county.

Al Wright, Rockingham County jail superintendent, believes in the efficiency of the technology so much he spent $20,000 from his own budget to bring video-conferencing to Portsmouth District Court late last year. The $20,000 covered the cost and installation of the system.

Wright said he recently approached another judge about installing a system in a third district court.

"You're going to have savings with your time and staffing," he said.

With the rise in gas prices and an increase in the number of inmates being ferried across the county, use of video-conferencing at Rockingham County Superior Court might deserve a second look, according to County Attorney James Reams.

"We've had defendants file motions from the prison in Berlin, asking for a new trial," Reams said. "They'll be transported from Berlin to Concord by the prison; then the county has to go get them. It's almost a three- or four-day process to get them from Berlin and back, which can be a hassle."

A few times a year, prosecutors have to venture to the Concord or Berlin prisons to deal with writs claiming wrongful imprisonment, Reams said. Those cases could be handled easily — and quickly — using video-conferencing, he said.

Superior Court lags in technology

Rockingham County Superior Court briefly used the technology in 2001, but dropped it because judges rarely used it. The equipment was set up in only one of the building's eight courtrooms. It required a court staffer to go through 12 different steps to set it up, recalled Superior Court Clerk Raymond Taylor.

"Then we'd have to get the judge from one courtroom to another ... it just wasn't a good use of our time," Taylor said. "There was a cost factor, too. We were paying hundreds of dollars a month for something we didn't use that much."

Taylor said he is sure the cost of using video technology has significantly decreased in recent years, but the Brentwood court, which serves 37 communities, is woefully outdated on a number of technological fronts.

"We don't have the Internet," he said. "We have to fax to you things we could be sending electronically. I don't think it's very progressive. When we get somebody who is sentenced to state prison, we type up the order on a typewriter and drive it up there with the inmate, so video (technology) is the least of our problems."

At the very least, proponents believe, video-conferencing can reduce the number of trips the Sheriff's Department has to make to the county's 12 courts.

The Sheriff's Department moves inmates in pairs or small groups whenever possible, yet the number of transports to courtrooms across Rockingham County increased for the second year in a row in 2007.

Last year, deputies performed 10,403 inmate transports, with roughly one-third, or 3,301, going to Superior Court. In 2006, there were 9,336 transports, with 2,826 going to Superior Court. The year before, 8,271 transports were done, with 2,596 sent to Superior Court.

The department dedicates eight deputies to transporting inmates. Hourly pay for those deputies ranges from $19 to $25. On busy days, deputies are pulled from other departments to help out, said sheriff's Capt. Mark Pierce.

He said the department doesn't have an exact estimate on how much they spend annually for transportation, but believes the video systems in Salem and Portsmouth have been beneficial from a security and fiscal standpoint.

"It certainly helps us," Pierce said. "There's no question about that. But you still have a number of hearings where a person needs to be there in person. But every time you move somebody, it poses a security risk."

System saves time and money

Salem and Portsmouth district courts regularly use video-conferencing for arraignments, an initial court appearance in which a judge sets bail. The process takes only a few minutes, far less time than the hours that can go into driving inmates from jail to court and back.

Salem District Court Judge John Korbey said his court may soon start using video-conferencing for probable cause hearings, in which defendants ask prosecutors to present evidence that led to their arrest. Korbey said the majority of those hearings are usually waived by lawyers, but sheriff's deputies are still bringing those defendants to court to say they don't want to move forward with the hearing.

The county first paid to install a video system in Salem about four years ago because it was one of the farthest from the county jail.

"They were doing it as a cost savings, but I was happy to have it because it increased the safety for the courthouse," Korbey said. "It has worked phenomenally well."

From the bench in Salem, Korbey uses a remote control to contact the county jail or state prison. Instead of making the 20-mile drive from the Brentwood jail, inmates are walked from their cell to a nearby room.

Korbey can listen to arguments from prosecutors and the inmate or his lawyer.

Over the years, the system has shown its applications go beyond criminal cases, he said.

"We had a termination of parental rights case and the father was in New York at Attica state prison," Korbey said, noting the law doesn't require a defendant to be in the courtroom to participate. "We've used it for a number of things like that, so you are only limited by your imagination in terms of what you can use it for."

The system in Salem was out of commission only once, during the floods last April when a Verizon service station in Raymond was knocked out for about two weeks. Otherwise, Korbey said, there have been no technical problems.

Korbey said he believes having the ability to communicate directly with the jail limits the possibility of deputies getting stuck in court, waiting for a hearing or trial to end.

The system also saves deputies from driving to federal courts in Boston or Concord, according to Wright, the jail superintendent.

He recalled one time last spring when a federal judge in Boston presided over five New Hampshire deportation hearings using video-conferencing — and it took just 20 minutes.

Having sheriff's deputies drive to Boston "is an all-day commitment," Wright said. "Here, it can be done for the price of a hamburger."

Taylor said the Superior Court ended up using the conferencing equipment only two or three times a month. But lack of use wasn't the only factor that led to its demise.

The courtroom where the video system was hooked up is now used as the Exeter District Court. And with Superior Court sitting only five miles from the county jail, the inmates weren't traveling a significant distance. Taylor said the court wouldn't rule out taking a second look at video technology — if another department pushed for its use.

Reams and Wright both say they have encouraged the Superior Court to take up the technology again to no avail.

"They don't seem to have an interest," Wright said. "I don't know why."

One point of confusion may be who decides to use the equipment. Taylor believes the decision might rest with the administrative office of the courts in Concord. Reams said the court's administrative judge could make the decision.

Wright said he expected a 1996 state-funded program designed to expand video-conferencing in courts to expand after security concerns grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks. But the program never took hold.

In the last five years, the Rockingham jail established video connections with 25 other agencies, including the state's parole board, prisons, federal law enforcement agencies, and courts in Concord and Boston. This year, the Rockingham jail began using it for "telepsychiatry" so inmates can receive certain types of counseling from experts in other states.

If the video technology expands to Superior Court, one issue that may have to be ironed out is who pays for it.

District and superior courts are operated and controlled by the state, not the county.

No one has taken a comprehensive look at what kind of cost savings could be reaped from cutting down on inmate transportation. But many acknowledge it could save money.