Arrested at Mitt Romney Campaign's Request

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a toughie, if it was a private event and invitation only then I can see the removal. If it was an open event, and there was a general invitation to the public then it is questionable.

This is a very good point too.

I know during the Civil Rights movement, there were a number of cases that basically said that just because it's your own private property doesn't give you the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I do think the nature of this event is important even to the question of whether or not it was legal for them to bounce him based on hearsay of a past incident and no evidence of imminent trouble at the current event.

If they lacked the authority to remove him, they certainly lacked the authority to arrest him for his civil, non-disruptive refusal to leave.

 

[Bikewer]

Trespassing can be somewhat arcane. Generally, if you are in a location that is under the control of an individual or entity, and the individual or authorized representative of the entity tells you to leave, you must do so.
If you refuse to leave, that in itself is sufficient to result in arrest. In the case of public facilities, there must be some reason shown for why the individual is being asked to leave.
Inappropriate behavior, past problems ( previous arrests or a history of disruptive behavior ), things like that.
However, if the person is seen as persona non grata and is not specifically told to leave, and police are called to check the individual out....
We would normally do just that. If he is not specifically causing problems and it's a public
space, then we'd take no action unless he became disruptive.
If the person is not deemed arrestable, but we don't want him around ( as in, he has a number of arrests for stealing), then we would normally give the "formal warning" against trespass, and escort him from the campus.

In the case of this young man, it's not clear to me if he was formally arrested, ( booked ) issued a citation, or merely required to leave.
If the event was private and clearly marked, then this would be appropriate. If this was a public event, and the guy wasn't doing anything disruptive, then this would be on rather shaky ground.

 

[stilicho]

....

What is substantial about you copying what I've already said point for point?

Do you have anything either correct or useful regarding the legal questions I raised, *or* the fact that I already pointed out more than once, that all we have to go on is the narrative from Beiber and an inconclusive news echo?

What legal questions have you raised?

 

[stilicho]

Removing them and arresting them are two very different things.

[ETA: And see my reply to Dancing David's comment 2 posts below. Police can't remove someone from a sports event based on the say so of the client alone. If they lack the authority to remove the guy, they certainly lack the authority to arrest him for his refusal to leave. Remember, the officer's statement agreed that Bieber had done nothing wrong. The people you're talking about at a sports event had to have done something wrong to be removed and possibly arrested.]

....

How do you know this is true? I know that you tacitly purchase an agreement along with your event ticket. Is this not the case when you attend a political event?

Say someone storms the podium at your favourite politician's appearance at the car dealership. He starts telling everyone that he's been a fine friend of X ever since they both campaigned for the American Nazi Party and so on.

Can he only be removed or arrested but not both? Is there any action that, without the purchased agreement, would lead to both?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the case of this young man, it's not clear to me if he was formally arrested, ( booked ) issued a citation, or merely required to leave.

According to the news article I cited earlier, he was handcuffed, put in the police car and held in jail for a period of some hours. I saw no mention of charges filed, but that's not really the same thing as an arrest.


ETA: Deleted a chunk of this post because I replied to a part of the post before reading the rest of it, only to see that the same point was made.

 

[crimresearch]

What legal questions have you raised?

Try reading the thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do you know this is true? I know that you tacitly purchase an agreement along with your event ticket.

I think that agreement (which may or may not be legally binding in any particular case) is more about your waiving liability if you get hit with a puck or ball, and that you will refrain from throwing bottles onto the field of play and so on.

I'm certain, for example, that a sports venue can't remove a customer because of the customer's race, color, religion or national origin. ("Sports venues" are specifically mentioned as being in the class of "public accomodations" in the Civil Rights Act.)

Say someone storms the podium at your favourite politician's appearance at the car dealership. He starts telling everyone that he's been a fine friend of X ever since they both campaigned for the American Nazi Party and so on.

That sort of disruptive behavior is easily distinguishable from the events in question. The police officer admitted that Bieber didn't do any such a thing.

If it's a public event, I don't think they can just remove him for no reason. If the only reason is hearsay about some past event (where the officers weren't present), I'm not so sure.

At any rate, removing them at the client's request and arresting them are two very different things. And I don't buy the argument that you can distinguish his refusal to leave as an arrestable offense from the client's request that he be asked to leave. It seems to me the latter is simply an extension of the former, and not a separate issue. The police were still acting as employees of the Romney campaign and not as public servants. (I think removing Bieber or arresting him for refusing to leave--given that he wasn't being disruptive in any way-- serves no public interest.)

 

[crimresearch]

Actually, if the people owning the property go through the proper motions, they can use trespass statutes for bigoted purposes... and the remedy would be through a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

As in the Beiber case, the police should be following the code and policy for their agency and jurisdiction on trespass, removal, arrest, etc., not deciding who is good or bad.

And the bulk of the information so far reads like a morality play, with some details missing or unclear.

For example, if the Romney group had a restraining order against Beiber for previous behavior, all they would have do to to get him arrested would be to show it to any police officer and say 'That's the guy from last week'.
But nothing in his narrative suggests any such condition existed.
With what we do have, his being actually arrested, booked and jailed, because someone said 'That's the guy from last week' simply doesn't add up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Trespassing can be somewhat arcane. Generally, if you are in a location that is under the control of an individual or entity, and the individual or authorized representative of the entity tells you to leave, you must do so.
If you refuse to leave, that in itself is sufficient to result in arrest. In the case of public facilities, there must be some reason shown for why the individual is being asked to leave.
Inappropriate behavior, past problems ( previous arrests or a history of disruptive behavior ), things like that.
However, if the person is seen as persona non grata and is not specifically told to leave, and police are called to check the individual out....
We would normally do just that. If he is not specifically causing problems and it's a public
space, then we'd take no action unless he became disruptive.
If the person is not deemed arrestable, but we don't want him around ( as in, he has a number of arrests for stealing), then we would normally give the "formal warning" against trespass, and escort him from the campus.

Just for clarification: aren't you a municipal police officer?

In my own experience, police officers respond the way you describe most of the time: looking for a reasonable solution to a problem rather than unnecessarily escalating things. It seems reasonable to check him out (at least to verify what the campaign staff was telling them) before going all authoritarian and arresting the guy.

If Bieber's account is accurate (and no one so far seems willing to contradict it), they tried to remove him first and explain later. Once outside, they went from being willing to explain to arresting him.

And the stuff they said upon releasing him (if Bieber's account is accurate) is just bunk. To tell him he'd be arrested for talking to the press or even returning to the public street in front of the venue--that's just nuts. If that's what they told him, it's an abuse of their authority, and I hope a judge will have something to say to them at some point.

 

[Bikewer]

If the guy was handcuffed, placed in a police car, and taken to the police station, then he was "arrested" by any legal definition. He may not have been held or charged, but he was certainly arrested.
I agree that it sounds like the officers just hauled the guy out of there as an expiditious way to handle the situation, but I would think they were on very shaky ground legally.

That's provided things were as stated; media accounts tend to vary somewhat from actual occurrence....

 

[stilicho]

I think that agreement (which may or may not be legally binding in any particular case) is more about your waiving liability if you get hit with a puck or ball, and that you will refrain from throwing bottles onto the field of play and so on.

I'm certain, for example, that a sports venue can't remove a customer because of the customer's race, color, religion or national origin. ("Sports venues" are specifically mentioned as being in the class of "public accomodations" in the Civil Rights Act.)

That sort of disruptive behavior is easily distinguishable from the events in question. The police officer admitted that Bieber didn't do any such a thing.

If it's a public event, I don't think they can just remove him for no reason. If the only reason is hearsay about some past event (where the officers weren't present), I'm not so sure.

At any rate, removing them at the client's request and arresting them are two very different things. And I don't buy the argument that you can distinguish his refusal to leave as an arrestable offense from the client's request that he be asked to leave. It seems to me the latter is simply an extension of the former, and not a separate issue. The police were still acting as employees of the Romney campaign and not as public servants. (I think removing Bieber or arresting him for refusing to leave--given that he wasn't being disruptive in any way-- serves no public interest.)

I doubt this activist was removed because of his race, colour, religion or national origin either. He didn't mention any of these reasons in his blog posts.

Uniformed police officers are acting in their official capacity even when their time is paid for by an event organiser.

I am still having trouble which aspect of their authority you're questioning. Is it that they had no authority to remove him from the premises? Or is it that they had no authority to arrest him after he left the building?

To hold an event such as the Romney whistle stop, the organisers would have had to apply to the local authorities first before it could even be sanctioned and that would include the policing staff allocated to the project. That means any action they took would be under the authority of the police department and not the Romney staff. The reason this story isn't growing legs is because the officers acted under their own department's authority.

Let's see if Bieber brings a lawsuit against someone. That will be a pretty good barometer. It's noteworthy that he hasn't even posted a copy of his arrest report.

 

[Roadtoad]

From what I've read, the story is still developing. We can wait and see.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I doubt this activist was removed because of his race, colour, religion or national origin either. He didn't mention any of these reasons in his blog posts.

I was merely refuting the statement that any private property owner can have anyone removed without cause. They cannot. There are limits. The Civil Rights Act is just one example of such limitations. It was not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all the restrictions on the authority of a private property owner's authority to have people removed.

[ETA: In particular, you asserted that something about your ticket agreement gives the police the authority to remove you from a sporting event for no reason whatsoever. That's not true. If you're doing something wrong--creating a disturbance, throwing bottles, otherwise breaking the rules--that's a situation easily and starkly distinguished from the present situation.]

Uniformed police officers are acting in their official capacity even when their time is paid for by an event organiser.

Yes, but the officer fully admits he was acting at the request of his client (the Romney campaign) in asking Bieber to leave. As I've said, arguing that the arrest was anything but an extension of this action (in the absence, for example, of any disruptive behavior on Bieber's part), doesn't hold much water.

Again, I think the arrest was at least problematic.

I am still having trouble which aspect of their authority you're questioning. Is it that they had no authority to remove him from the premises? Or is it that they had no authority to arrest him after he left the building?

They had the authority to arrest people, but no cause to invoke that authority wrt Bieber. They have the authority to ask him to leave at the request of the client. However, they do NOT have the authority to arrest someone at the request of the client.

I've made this clear. I'm not sure why you don't understand the issue.

That means any action they took would be under the authority of the police department and not the Romney staff.

It means no such thing. No one has asserted that the police took it on themselves to ask Bieber to leave. They were instructed to do so by the campaign staff.

The reason this story isn't growing legs is because the officers acted under their own department's authority.

That is false. They acted on instructions from the campaign staff in asking Bieber to leave. The officer admits that he saw Bieber doing nothing that warranted removal.

It's noteworthy that he hasn't even posted a copy of his arrest report.

You're willing to make something of the absence of an arrest report, but don't find the campaign's refusal to comment at all telling? First, there may have been no arrest report. Second, Bieber might not have it, or it might not yet be available.

ETA: And Bieber's blog already indicates what his first step was. He wrote a letter to the Romney campaign and said he will report any response he gets. The Nashua Telegraph got a refusal to comment when they tried to get the Romney campaign's side of the story.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason this story isn't growing legs <snip>

That's debatable. . .

http://www.thewheatandchaff.com/ten...my-arrest-at-a-romney-event-in-new-hampshire/

It's been on Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, DailyKos, a couple of newspapers, etc. It's generated a lot of discussion like this, and he's received offers of legal assistance.

I doubt this is going to go away quietly.

 

[crimresearch]

"I was merely refuting the statement that any private property owner can have anyone removed without cause. They cannot."

You can keep repeating that all you want, it isn't true in the context you've given.

Under existing trespass statutes, no mention is made of 'if the trespasser is a member of a protected class, the police are forbidden to take action'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was merely refuting the statement that any private property owner can have anyone removed without cause. They cannot.

You can keep repeating that all you want, it isn't true in the context you've given.

I cited the Civil Rights Act. By the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, it trumps any trespass statute that conflicts with it.

Here is the section of the Civil Rights Act dealing with public accommodations (which specifically mentions sports arenas, which is the example I was refuting):
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Under existing trespass statutes, no mention is made of 'if the trespasser is a member of a protected class, the police are forbidden to take action'.

Who are you quoting here? (Inventing quotes is a pretty good sign that you might be arguing against a strawman position.)

I never claimed the police are forbidden to take action against anyone if they have cause to do so. I said they can't do it for no reason at all but the request of the property owner in all cases.

ETA: Returning to the incident in question, I'm not saying that I know for sure the police weren't authorized to remove him at their client's request. I'm just saying that it might not be the case if the event was open to the public. At any rate, they certainly can't arrest him at the request of the client. And again, the officer answered the question about why they arrested him by saying it was the word of Bieber against that of their client.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, if the people owning the property go through the proper motions, they can use trespass statutes for bigoted purposes...

Not legally!

and the remedy would be through a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

Well isn't that like saying a person can commit murder. . . and the remedy is through criminal prosecution?

As in the Beiber case, the police should be following the code and policy for their agency and jurisdiction on trespass, removal, arrest, etc., not deciding who is good or bad.

And the bulk of the information so far reads like a morality play, with some details missing or unclear.

For example, if the Romney group had a restraining order against Beiber for previous behavior, all they would have do to to get him arrested would be to show it to any police officer and say 'That's the guy from last week'.
But nothing in his narrative suggests any such condition existed.
With what we do have, his being actually arrested, booked and jailed, because someone said 'That's the guy from last week' simply doesn't add up.

I agree with all of this.

I think the strongest argument the police have is to deny the quotation (that they arrested him because it was Bieber's word against that of the staff), and say they were acting in their authority as private security in asking him to leave, but then when he refused, no longer acting at the behest of their client, they arrested him for trespass.

Even at that, I suspect they weren't following standard police procedures, since no one contests the fact that Bieber wasn't causing any kind of disturbance.

Also, what he was told upon his release is completely illegal if true (that he could be arrested even for returning to the public area near the event or for talking to the media). Issuing a restraining order isn't part of the police authority at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am still having trouble which aspect of their authority you're questioning. Is it that they had no authority to remove him from the premises? Or is it that they had no authority to arrest him after he left the building?

Let me put it this way: by analogy, police have the authority to use lethal force. But they certainly don't have that authority except in circumstances where it's warranted.

Because police have the authority to make arrests, even when they are working as contracted security, is not a blanket defense against the tort of false arrest. If they make an arrest without probable cause or without an order issued by a court with jurisdiction, that arrest is wrong and illegal (a tort).

 

[crimresearch]

Yes, legally.

The police don't have the authority to fail to enforce the laws because of a possible discrimination lawsuit *against the complainant* later on.
The comparison to a crime is invalid, because there is no statute criminalizing the legitimate enforcement of trespass laws, as I already pointed out.

And every state I know of has licensing requirements for private security, especially armed, and cops who are moonlighting can't dodge behind, 'We were only private security'. If they are in police uniform, or show their police badges, then they're cops, moonlighting.

 

[crimresearch]

I cited the Civil Rights Act. By the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, it trumps any trespass statute that conflicts with it.

Here is the section of the Civil Rights Act dealing with public accommodations (which specifically mentions sports arenas, which is the example I was refuting):
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm


Who are you quoting here? (Inventing quotes is a pretty good sign that you might be arguing against a strawman position.)

I never claimed the police are forbidden to take action against anyone if they have cause to do so. I said they can't do it for no reason at all but the request of the property owner in all cases.

ETA: Returning to the incident in question, I'm not saying that I know for sure the police weren't authorized to remove him at their client's request. I'm just saying that it might not be the case if the event was open to the public. At any rate, they certainly can't arrest him at the request of the client. And again, the officer answered the question about why they arrested him by saying it was the word of Bieber against that of their client.

Nice try. You claimed that the police could not enforce trespass laws for a complainant who wanted to get minorities off their property.

I said there is no such language in any law.

Making up the fake claim that I invented a quote is a sure sign that you are pulling everything out of your butt.

Your Googling of impressive legal sounding words like 'tort', and using fallacies to cobble together your own interpretations of the law is great good fun for you, I'm sure.

But at the end of the day, no matter how impressive you think your arguments are, or how many you think you've 'won'... the reality remains just the opposite of what you describe.