Were Any Laws Broken at the Idaho Town Hall Meeting?
Teresa Borrenpohl detained by Lear Asset Management security guards at Town Hall Meeting.
What started as a routine town hall meeting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, quickly spiraled into controversy when Dr. Teresa Borrenpohl, a Democratic activist and former legislative candidate, was forcibly removed by plainclothes security guards. The chaotic scene—captured on video and widely shared—shows her being dragged out of the auditorium while she screams for help. The immediate question on everyone’s mind: Was this legal? Were any laws broken? And if so, who is responsible?
Let’s break it down.
Was It a Public or Private Event?
One of the key factors in determining whether Borrenpohl’s removal was lawful is whether the event was public or private. The meeting was held in a public high school auditorium, advertised as a chance for citizens to engage with their elected officials. Despite this, the Republican organizers claimed it was a private event and that they had the right to remove disruptive attendees.
Here’s the problem: The school district stated that the event was presented to them as “public.” This means the venue was being used under the understanding that it was open to all members of the community. If the event is legally considered a public forum, then First Amendment protections apply, making it illegal to remove someone solely based on their speech.
If it were private, the organizers would have more control over who could stay or leave. However, even if private, the use of force to remove someone would still have to be reasonable under the law.
Did This Violate the First Amendment?
Dr. Borrenpohl was not simply sitting quietly—she was heckling. But here’s the issue: Heckling is still protected speech in public forums unless it causes a major disruption that prevents an event from continuing. Witnesses reported that while Borrenpohl and a few others were being removed for heckling, other audience members who were cheering and applauding the Republican speakers were allowed to stay.
That’s called viewpoint discrimination, and it’s unconstitutional. The government cannot allow speech it likes while silencing speech it doesn’t—especially in a public space.
Adding to this, Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris played a direct role in her removal. The sheriff, a government official, was seen threatening Borrenpohl with pepper spray and arrest if she did not leave. The moment a government actor gets involved in restricting someone’s speech, it raises serious constitutional red flags.
If this case ends up in court, there’s a strong argument that Dr. Borrenpohl’s First Amendment rights were violated.
Were the Security Guards Acting Legally?
Three men—later identified as employees of LEAR Asset Management, a private security firm—were the ones who physically removed Dr. Borrenpohl. This brings up another legal question: Did they have the authority to do so?
In Idaho, private security does not have the same powers as law enforcement. They can ask someone to leave private property, and if that person refuses, they can call the police. They do not have the right to use force unless they are acting in self-defense or removing a trespasser from private property.
Here’s where it gets even more complicated:
The event’s “public vs. private” status is disputed.
The security guards were in plainclothes with no identifying badges or uniforms, a direct violation of Coeur d’Alene city ordinances, which require private security to wear clearly marked attire.
Witnesses described the removal as “violent and traumatic,” with Borrenpohl being wrestled to the ground and dragged out while she screamed for help.
Because of these factors, the City of Coeur d’Alene revoked LEAR Asset Management’s business license, citing violations of city security laws. This strongly suggests that, at the very least, their actions were not in full compliance with the law.
Could the Security Guards or Sheriff Face Criminal Charges?
The short answer: Possibly.
Coeur d’Alene Police have confirmed they are investigating whether any crimes were committed during Borrenpohl’s removal. Potential charges could include:
Assault & Battery – If the force used was excessive, the security guards could face battery charges for physically removing Borrenpohl.
False Imprisonment – If the security guards had no legal right to detain her, they could face charges for unlawfully restricting her movement.
Official Misconduct (for the Sheriff) – If Sheriff Norris misused his authority, he could face consequences, though it’s more likely this would result in internal disciplinary action rather than criminal charges.
Meanwhile, the battery charge initially filed against Borrenpohl (for allegedly biting one of the security guards) was dropped by prosecutors, suggesting that authorities see her more as a victim than an offender in this situation.
Could There Be a Civil Lawsuit?
Yes. In fact, this is the most likely outcome. Dr. Borrenpohl’s supporters have already raised over $300,000 for legal action. If she files a civil suit, possible claims could include:
Violation of her First Amendment rights (against the sheriff and potentially the event organizers)
Excessive force and false imprisonment (against the security guards and LEAR Asset Management)
Civil rights violations under federal law (42 U.S.C. §1983)
A lawsuit could result in financial damages and possibly even changes to how security and law enforcement handle dissent at public political events.
So, Were Any Laws Broken?
While no one has been officially charged with a crime yet, there is compelling evidence that multiple laws were broken:
First Amendment violations – If this was a public event, removing Borrenpohl because of her speech was unconstitutional.
Unlawful use of private security – The security guards violated city laws by not wearing proper uniforms.
Potential criminal conduct – The security guards’ use of force is being investigated for possible battery or false imprisonment.
Misuse of authority by a public official – Sheriff Norris’s involvement could lead to legal consequences.
The Bigger Picture
Beyond the legal questions, this incident raises a larger concern: Are political events becoming places where dissent is met with force?
A town hall is supposed to be a space where citizens can challenge their leaders—not a place where dissenters are dragged out by unidentified enforcers. Regardless of political affiliation, no American should have to fear physical removal for simply speaking up at a public event.
The outcome of this case will set an important precedent. Will law enforcement and private security be held accountable for suppressing speech? Or will this be swept under the rug as “just another political scuffle”?
As investigations unfold and potential lawsuits are filed, one thing is clear: The legal battle is just beginning.