logo
Two days after a woman was dragged from a Coeur d'Alene town hall, Sheriff Bob Norris and other parties will face investigation into conduct

Two days after a woman was dragged from a Coeur d'Alene town hall, Sheriff Bob Norris and other parties will face investigation into conduct

Yahoo25-02-2025

Feb. 24—Two days after private security guards dragged a woman by her arms out of a legislative town hall in Coeur d'Alene at the signaling of Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris, he and others at the event are now facing investigations into their conduct.
Teresa Borrenpohl was jeering local politicians on the town hall stage Saturday afternoon along with other people in the auditorium at Coeur d'Alene High School. The event had been marketed on Facebook by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee as a legislative town hall designed to give the public updates from local lawmakers.
Borrenpohl, who ran as a Democrat for Idaho's House of Representatives in 2024, 2022 and 2020, was booing the participants along with other attendees at the meeting when Norris confronted her, identified himself and told her to leave or she would be escorted out, video from the event shows. As she did not comply, Norris grabbed her arm with both hands and attempted to remove her from the town hall. She asked him, "Please don't touch me."
He then admonished people recording his actions. He is seen on video asking Borrenpohl: "Do you want pepper spray? Let's go."
The sheriff then summoned two security guards who eventually wrestled her from her seat and dragged her out of the auditorium as she screamed, "Who are these men?"
The men were later identified by town hall organizer Brent Regan as private security from Lear Asset Management Inc.
Regan, chairman of the KCRCC, said he hired them as a precaution over threats made against a legislator.
After Saturday's chaos, the city of Coeur d'Alene revoked Lear's security license due to their uniforms and behavior, stating that both were in violation of city code, a news release from the Coeur d'Alene Police Department said.
Norris is also poised to be the subject of an outside investigation to determine if his conduct at the meeting violated any policy, according to a separate release from his own sheriff's office. He is expected to make a statement on the matter Tuesday, a sheriff's spokesperson said.
It's unclear which agency will be tasked with investigating any policy violations, but options include the Idaho State Police, Post Falls Police or the Bonner County Sheriff's Office.
In the meantime, Coeur d'Alene Police are conducting a separate investigation into people at the event to determine if anyone violated criminal law.
Police cited Borrenpohl on Saturday night on suspicion of battery from the "limited information" known at the time after she allegedly bit one of the security guards removing her from the town hall, the police department said in a Monday news release. But following the review of more witness videos and other evidence, the Coeur d'Alene City Attorney's Office declined to pursue prosecution.
"Careful consideration of relevant law," the police report and additional information that came to light all contributed to the decision, Deputy Prosecutor Ryan Hunter said via email. A motion to dismiss Borrenpohl's charge will be filed in the coming days.
A GoFundMe set up to help Borrenpohl in retaining legal counsel collected $200,000 from more than 6,000 contributors as of Monday night.
What happened?
Regan said Borrenpohl had shouted six or seven times as lawmakers spoke, so she was warned three times to stop interrupting.
In the video someone is heard saying, "women are dying." The remark is followed by the emcee, Ed Bejarana, saying some guests have "stupid remarks," to which Borrenpohl responds, "is this a town hall or a lecture?"
At some point, Norris approached Borrenpohl, identified himself as the sheriff and claimed she would be arrested if she didn't leave.
The emcee was standing at a podium on stage and told those who were jeering at him that he had a microphone and "will continue to talk over you."
"The reality is, there's a whole bunch of great things that are happening; the problem is we've got a bunch of rabble-rousers who just won't allow it to be spoken," Bejarana said. "So the thing is, what I'm doing up here is, I'm simply over-talking you because your voice is meaningless right now."
Norris then gestured to two men in plainclothes with black jackets. They grabbed Borrenpohl and told her to cooperate as Norris stood by, seen holding his phone as if he's recording video. According to witness footage, Borrenpohl can be heard screaming repeatedly, "Who are these men?" and "Who are these guys?" as one man told her to cooperate.
Both men then pulled her to the floor and grabbed her by her arms and legs. The men rolled her over and dragged her by her arms out the door as she continued to ask people who the men are.
After she was dragged away, Norris is heard in the video asking for two more security workers. The speaker then echoes Norris' request over the microphone, video shows.
Notably, Borrenpohl was confronted by Norris and Lear security after shouting that state Sen. Phil Hart, R-Kellog, had once stolen timber from public land meant for sale to fund public schools in Idaho.
Hart paid the state $2,450 in 2010, the 1996 market value of the logs he had taken to build his home, which he maintained he was legally allowed to do despite three court rulings to the contrary.
First Amendment, other issues up for debate
The security guards who dragged Borrenpohl out of the venue are employees of Lear Asset Management, a California-based security company formed in 2012 that gained renown for its Mendocino County raids on illegal marijuana grows. Lear's website lists its services, including shoplifting prevention, dignitary and VIP protection services, and preventing timber theft on private lands.
Paul Trouette, owner and CEO of Lear, told the Coeur d'Alene City Council last June that his employees wore uniforms that clearly said "Security Contractor" on them so they would be easily distinguishable from law enforcement.
No uniforms are visible in footage of the incident.
Coeur d'Alene City Councilman Dan Gookin said he believed their lack of clothed identification went against a recent city ordinance, to which Trouette objected at the time.
Apart from private security, off-duty police officers occasionally fill in as security officers for private companies as they do at Best Buy on Black Friday. Officers can be hired by groups, said Coeur d'Alene Police Capt. David Hagar, but "we have to make sure we are complying with the law and police policy." Off-duty officers on security jobs are required to dress in full police uniform, Hagar said.
The incident has also raised questions about the First Amendment: Whether or to what extent First Amendment rights were violated could depend in part on whether the town hall was legally a public forum or private event. In a public forum, free speech restrictions must generally be limited to the "time, place and manner" of the speech. While authorities can, in some cases, also restrict the content of speech, they can only do so in a way that is "viewpoint neutral."
Notification for the event was posted on Facebook by the KCRCC and does not indicate the meeting was private or ticketed in any way.
"The KCRCC will be holding a Legislative Town Hall on Saturday, February 22nd, 12:30-2:30 PM, at the Coeur d'Alene High School. This is a great opportunity to meet your Idaho State Legislators and get updates on the 2025 Legislative Session," the post states.
Commentators have noted that Borrenpohl was removed from the event for jeering, while guests who applauded and cheered the speakers were not removed.
"Examples of spaces found by courts to be limited public forums include public school facilities during after school hours and the interior of a city hall," a 2022 post by the University of North Carolina School of Government states.
Regan contends Saturday's town hall was a private event held at a public venue, Coeur d'Alene High School. Though the event was marketed openly by a flyer on Facebook with no tickets or invitation required, Regan announced at the event that the meeting was private since the KCRCC isn't a governmental agency and legislators speaking were "invited guests."
"A private event can be held in a public setting," Regan said. "As soon as it was a private event, it's the same as if it were in your living room. If they start acting up, you can ask them to leave."
Gookin, a member of the KCRCC often at odds with Regan, said he disagrees with Regan's classification of the event as private.
"My contention is, why would you send out flyers to the general public and advertise that this event is happening if this is a private event," Gookin said. "I think they're trying to mince words to justify their actions."
He considered Saturday's setting a public event, though not a public meeting.
The nuance in the distinction, Gookin said, is how the public is expected to participate. He considers city council meetings as "a meeting in public, not a meeting with the public," he said, because the audience can't interact with city officials as they're doing official business, only during periods of public comment and public testimony.
He said at any event or meeting, public or private, the hosts can request anyone leave. If they don't comply, law enforcement can trespass them from the space.
"If someone's being disruptive, you can ask them to leave; you cannot force someone to leave," Gookin said, saying a proper reaction to Borrenpohl would have been to call 911 and have authorities trespass her.
"In your own home, definitely you can drag someone out the front door," Gookin said. "But as far as a public location like that, say you rent the pavilion for a picnic, you don't drag them out by their hair, you call the police."
Though Norris was involved during the whole interaction, Borrenpohl wasn't trespassed. Coeur d'Alene police declined Norris' request to trespass and arrest Borrenpohl.
The police department said in its Monday news release that the department "recognizes and values all rights afforded by the United States Constitution to all citizens" which includes the right to free speech. The incident is "complex," the release said, and detectives are continuing to investigate.
Coeur d'Alene Police Chief Lee White told the Coeur d'Alene Press on Sunday he believed Borrenpohl's removal was inappropriate in the eyes of the First Amendment.
The Coeur d'Alene City Council has since released a statement on Borrenpohl's removal in which they advocate for equal protection under the law "for every citizen" and the decision from the chief of police to investigate the incident.
"We set a clear expectation that the laws of the State of Idaho and the U.S. Constitution will be followed in any interactions with our citizens," the statement, signed by all city council members and the mayor, reads. "As City leaders we have a long history of strongly supporting human rights, civil rights, and dignity for all. Citizens and visitors to Coeur d'Alene can count on these guiding principles."
Borrenpohl declined to comment when reached by phone Sunday afternoon; she later provided a written statement.
"I could never have imagined my right to free speech and my right to assemble could be stripped in such a violent way," she wrote.
Elena Perry's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Woman arrested in connection to reported hit-and-run in Wyoming County
Woman arrested in connection to reported hit-and-run in Wyoming County

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Woman arrested in connection to reported hit-and-run in Wyoming County

LYNCO, WV (WVNS) — A woman was arrested after a reported hit-and-run that resulted in serious bodily injury in Wyoming County. Multiple people arrested after vape shop sting operation in Greenbrier County According to a press release on the Wyoming County Sheriff's Office's Facebook page, Kayla Rodgers was arrested on Thursday, June 5, 2025 for multiple charges that included: Felony leaving the scene of an accident causing serious bodily injury No insurance Failure to render aid Obstructing Filing of a false emergency report The press release stated that members of the Wyoming County Sheriff's Office responded to an ATV accident that was reported in Lynco on Thursday, May 29, 2025 that resulted in serious injuries for the driver of the ATV. According to the information in the Wyoming County Sheriff's Office's Facebook post, once members of the sheriff's office arrived at the scene, they discovered that the accident was a hit-and-run. Members of law enforcement also found that the second car, that was registered to Rodgers and had reported severe front end damage matching that of an accident, was abandoned nearby. Warrants issued in relation to fight after local high school graduation The post stated that the driver of the car was identified as Rodgers, who reportedly left the accident scene without stopping to offer help or information to the other person involved. Rodgers also allegedly called the Wyoming County Sheriff's Office after the accident and stated that her car was stolen before the crash, which was found to be false. Rodgers was arrested on Thursday, June 5, 2025 and taken to Southern Regional Jail, where the post stated that she will get the chance to post bond given by a Magistrate Judge. According to the press release, the other person involved in the crash was seriously injured, but is stable and in recovery. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach
Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach

A provision that would have benefited the public tremendously by enabling Congress to rein in out-of-control, costly regulations was stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a sad turn of events that hopefully will be corrected in the Senate. Nearly a decade ago, Congress considered legislation to fundamentally alter how regulations are adopted, defending personal and economic freedom in the process: the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny or REINS Act. REINS provisions that were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act until shortly before its passage would have put Congress back in the driver's seat regarding regulations. The importance of the REINS Act and the efforts to get it passed as part of the reconciliation bill cannot be overstated. Tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed by unaccountable agency bureaucrats each year, limiting individual liberty and choice and increasing costs in myriad, often unrecognized ways. Regulations are hidden taxes that siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from individual households and businesses every year. They represent the largest single fiscal burden on the economy outside of individual and corporate income taxes. The measure has been misleadingly described as a 'wholesale rollback of federal regulations.' In fact, it would merely force Congress to take responsibility for regulations developed by executive agencies to execute the laws it passes. Under REINS, if Congress disagrees with an agency's interpretation of what a law requires or imposes, Congress could prevent the regulations in question from taking effect. The scare-tactics used to vilify REINS inevitably involve a focus on regulations that protect human health and the environment. But many regulations — especially in energy and environmental policy — provide little or no measurable benefits in these areas despite imposing huge costs. The rules are often designed to expand the budgets and power of bureaucrats, creating make-work ventures and guaranteeing lifetime employment for agency staff. In a craven attempt to evade responsibility, past Congresses found it easy to delegate lawmaking power to executive agencies. Congress took credit for passing vague feel-good laws, only to blame agencies for going overboard, claiming they never intended the resulting onerous outcomes. Congress then publicly assails agencies for going beyond what lawmakers intended but does nothing to correct the supposed overreach. Recognizing the growing problem of overregulation, in 1996 Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which granted Congress the power under limited circumstances to review and block major regulations retroactively. The Congressional Review Act, however, has been used to overturn only 20 out of tens of thousands of regulations enacted in the nearly 30 years since it passed — in part because the president is allowed to veto resolutions under that law. The REINS Act is superior because it reverses this dynamic by requiring congressional approval for all major regulations — an opt-in system, so to speak, instead of opt-out. And under REINS, the president would not be authorized to ignore the will of Congress and its interpretation of its own laws, because no veto is available. The REINS provisions House Republicans inserted into the reconciliation bill are even more expansive than the original REINS legislation, requiring that any 'major rule that increases revenue' be approved through a joint resolution of the House and Senate. The provisions would have also allowed lawmakers to retroactively terminate countless rules that federal agencies have already implemented by requiring agencies to submit them to Congress for review. Rules that Congress fails to approve would automatically sunset. Also, multiple recently finalized regulations could be rescindedwith a single resolution rather than each individually as the Congressional Review Act requires. House sponsors had to remove the REINS provisions to avoid letting Democrats filibuster the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) reportedly believes he can make some of the provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that they can be reinserted and the bill can still pass with a simple majority. I believe the REINS provisions maybe the single most beneficial law Congress could adopt to get regulators' boots off the throats of average people and businesses. Congress alone was delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce. It didn't jealously guard that power before now; it should do so going forward. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear

President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store