Joe Miller's Unliscenced Security Guards 'Arrest' Reporter (Ping Lawyers)

[Puppycow]

I wonder how this is going to go down legally:

Joe Miller speaks on handcuffing incident, work history

Guards hired by Miller's campaign detained and handcuffed Tony Hopfinger, editor of the online news outlet Alaska Dispatch, at a town hall inside an Anchorage public school on Sunday. An Anchorage Daily News reporter filmed the aftermath and was accused of "trespassing"
. . .
Hopfinger told KTUU that security pushed him as he tried to question Miller and that he pushed back.

Asked if the guards' response was excessive, Miller told CNN that Hopfinger was hounding him: "[T]he behavior that was demonstrated while I was there was assaultive. It was certainly over the top. There's no question that that hounding was something that shouldn't have happened. And it was unfortunate. But, you know, this was a professional team that was hired according to the contract that we had and -- and I'm sure that they did the right thing."

So professional that they did not have a valid license to perform security work, it turns out.

So my question to lawyers (or knowledgeable laypeople): What happens when someone without a valid license to perform security work 'arrests' someone and handcuffs them for 30 minutes?

 

[Puppycow]

More background on these guards here

 

[Unabogie]

I wonder how this is going to go down legally:

Joe Miller speaks on handcuffing incident, work history


So professional that they did not have a valid license to perform security work, it turns out.

So my question to lawyers (or knowledgeable laypeople): What happens when someone without a valid license to perform security work 'arrests' someone and handcuffs them for 30 minutes?

Serious question: when did Charles Johnson regain his sanity? Was it gradual or did he wake up one day and say what the hell am I doing?

 

[Puppycow]

Serious question: when did Charles Johnson regain his sanity? Was it gradual or did he wake up one day and say what the hell am I doing?

See here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Serious question: when did Charles Johnson regain his sanity?

Charles Johnson has never been sane. It just looks like he is to partisans when he's on their side. So some on the right think he's lost it, and some on the left think he's come to, but he hasn't: he is, was, and always will be a few tines short of a fork.

 

[Puppycow]

Charles Johnson has never been sane. It just looks like he is to partisans when he's on their side. So some on the right think he's lost it, and some on the left think he's come to, but he hasn't: he is, was, and always will be a few tines short of a fork.

Say what you will about him but the man has a track record of sniffing out BS and exposing it. He was the first one to prove that the documents that Dan Rather had on Bush's reserve evaluations were forgeries. When Iran photoshopped extra missiles into a photo he noticed that. There are some other examples too.

 

[T.A.M.]

Better your country then mine.

Holy batcraptastic talk about excessive. If I were that american, I would be getting a lawyer and sue Miller's ass off.

I am not surprised, however, given the Tea Party and their ilk seem to want a "every village for themselves" quasi anarchy.

TAM

 

[Beerina]

If it's private, but open to the public, then what? But wouldn't that apply to the auditorium or gym, not the hallways downstairs? I suppose whatever the renter says, goes.

If the biggest outrage is that they weren't properly licensed, why is the posting even here?

Too bad the actual incident wasn't captured.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So my question to lawyers (or knowledgeable laypeople): What happens when someone without a valid license to perform security work 'arrests' someone and handcuffs them for 30 minutes?

False arrest is a tort. I know there is a shopkeeper's exception (where a merchant can arrest and detain a suspected shoplifter). I think it would apply here if the defendant (the security people who did the arresting) can prove that a crime had happened. [ETA: and I don't know of any crime of "hounding"! It sounds like things escalated when the shoving started, and it sounds like the security guards initiated that.] Just from what I've read of this case, I think the journalist would have a strong case.

I don't think the licensure issue is a big part of it. (That is, a private security company doesn't get a license such that any arrest they make is legitimate. Even the police don't have unlimited authority to make arrests, and police can and have been sued for false arrest.) I think it would be another bit of evidence to help the plaintiff's case.

[ETA: I should have said, I'm not a lawyer--just a hobbyist!]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Holy batcraptastic talk about excessive. If I were that american, I would be getting a lawyer and sue Miller's ass off.

I agree, he should sue the security guards (personally), their company, Miller, and any organization Miller might have been under the aegis of. However, I think inevitably only the guards would be found responsible, unless Miller or one of his people ordered them to arrest the journalist.

 

[Ziggurat]

Say what you will about him but the man has a track record of sniffing out BS and exposing it.

Yes, he does. He's also got a history of persecution complexes and an obsessive and petty vindictiveness against perceived slights. Being insane doesn't mean you're incapable of doing anything useful. It does mean one should treat him with some caution, though.

 

[eeyore1954]

False arrest is a tort. I know there is a shopkeeper's exception (where a merchant can arrest and detain a suspected shoplifter). I think it would apply here if the defendant (the security people who did the arresting) can prove that a crime had happened. [ETA: and I don't know of any crime of "hounding"! It sounds like things escalated when the shoving started, and it sounds like the security guards initiated that.] Just from what I've read of this case, I think the journalist would have a strong case.

It is certainly possible that the security guards were the instigators but,
Of course remember it is the person who was detained who said they started the shoving. It is also posible that this person was menacing or dangerous and needed to be restrained. The guards were charged with protecting this man and as can be seen here there are people who hate tea party candidates with a passion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is certainly possible that the security guards were the instigators but,
Of course remember it is the person who was detained who said they started the shoving. It is also posible that this person was menacing or dangerous and needed to be restrained.

Yep. It's not a slam-dunk case, and we only have what we have from these news stories. But if it is as these accounts suggest, I think the journalist would have a strong case.

The guards were charged with protecting this man and as can be seen here there are people who hate tea party candidates with a passion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that since the guards are primed to look for people who hate Tea Party people to commit violence, a reasonable person would perceive a journalist persistently asking questions as a criminal act?

Even if it's so (and I don't buy it for a minute), I don't think the justification for arrest (the defense against a claim of false arrest) is that a reasonable person might think a crime happened. I think you have to show that a crime actually happened. I'm not sure, but I suspect you'd also have to show that you couldn't call the police and wait for them to show up (as in the shopkeeper's exception, where a shoplifter would get away if the shopkeeper or his agents didn't arrest the suspect).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It does mean one should treat him with some caution, though.

You think making an arrest is cautious? If it were me, I'd call the police (or at least consult a lawyer) before having these guys with no police authority make an arrest.

Also, if the crime they're alleging is trespass, the remedy is to get rid of the trespasser, not to hold them. The guards could more conceivably have legally acted as bouncers and escorted the guy to the exit.

 

[eeyore1954]

Yep. It's not a slam-dunk case, and we only have what we have from these news stories. But if it is as these accounts suggest, I think the journalist would have a strong case.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that since the guards are primed to look for people who hate Tea Party people to commit violence, a reasonable person would perceive a journalist persistently asking questions as a criminal act?

No I am suggesting that the guards are aware that there is the possibility some people might have more than just asking questions in mind. If he did nothing more than ask questions or mildly resist when he was told to leave they were wrong. And a reasonable person would not percieve a journalist persistently asking questions as a criminal act.

We do not know what happened it is very possible the "guards" were not reasonable people. also likely the man they detained acted outside the range of safety. I am surprised there is no video.

The don't tase me bro guy said he was only asking questions also.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unless the journalist was doing something illegal (and even then), the guards had no right to LAY A HAND on the man, let alone arrest him. If this is allowed to slide, I cringe to think what will happen in the future with these type of candidates.

TAM

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No I am suggesting that the guards are aware that there is the possibility some people might have more than just asking questions in mind.

I don't see how this awareness would be relevant to a false arrest suit.

If he did nothing more than ask questions or mildly resist when he was told to leave they were wrong. And a reasonable person would not percieve a journalist persistently asking questions as a criminal act.

Exactly. What they did is what matters. Not what "awareness" they may have had. (It sounded like your were trying to say that the guards' biases might be a defense.)

We do not know what happened [sic] it is very possible the "guards" were not reasonable people. also likely the man they detained acted outside the range of safety. I am surprised there is no video.

Well, we have a pretty good idea what happened. Unless something about the news stories is grossly out of line, the journalist has a very strong case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unless the journalist was doing something illegal (and even then), the guards had no right to LAY A HAND on the man, let alone arrest him.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Again, the shopkeeper's exception might apply in a case like this if a crime were committed. As I mentioned, if the crime alleged is trespassing, I think the defense would probably also have to show that they couldn't wait for the police to show up or couldn't simply eject the guy.

From what I read, though, the journalist committed no crime.

If this is allowed to slide, I cringe to think what will happen in the future with these type of candidates.

I agree.

Sadly, I think Miller won't be liable for the false arrest, and the guards themselves don't have enough money to make a case worth pursuing. Either that or Miller (or an organization connected with his campaign) may just try to quietly settle the case. Since it's a tort, the likely remedy is money. Unfortunately, that means money can decide the outcome.

 

[Beerina]

Unless the journalist was doing something illegal (and even then), the guards had no right to LAY A HAND on the man, let alone arrest him. If this is allowed to slide, I cringe to think what will happen in the future with these type of candidates.

TAM

I don't know. Can't security guards stop someone from assaulting you? Or are they just allowed to watch and then phone the police when they see something? Seems counter-productive to pass laws like that, if you ask me.

The political wisdom of "arresting" the guy is not the same thing as the legality (or propriety) of stopping a guy from interrupting, disturbing, or trespassing where he isn't wanted.

 

[Puppycow]

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!