What should be the consequence if a law enforcement officer concealed the truth to facilitate an arrest?
Sadly, the information age has done little to bring us closer to the truth. In many ways the truth is difficult to ascertain because it is shrouded in lies. People with agendas and ulterior motives will confuse or distract you with irrelevant issues. They will twist the truth or misdirect you away from the truth when it does not support their narrative.
The KCRCC Town Hall on February 22nd made national news when hecklers were removed from the venue. We know from social media posting their disruption was planned. We know that the assembly was informed that the meeting was private and that anyone disrupting the proceedings would be removed. We know that under Idaho Code §18-7008 a renter can trespass anyone from their property at any time for any reason. Videos capture hecklers warned multiple times, Sheriff Bob Norris identifying himself and ordering them to leave, and one heckler (later cited for battery) resisting, punching, biting, and kicking security.
We know Idaho Code §31-2202(5) mandates that “the Sheriff shall … command the aid of as many inhabitants of the county as he may think necessary in the execution of these duties.” Video shows Norris directing security personnel to assist. Had the heckler complied with his lawful order, the chaos and headlines would’ve been avoided. Instead, disruption seemed their goal, perhaps for propaganda or fundraising.
We know the Coeur d’Alene Police Department (CDAPD) didn’t pursue the Democratic hecklers for conspiracy, disturbing the peace, trespass, resisting arrest, or battery. Charges were dropped. Instead, CDAPD investigated the event organizers, sheriff, and security, listing the disruptors as “victims.”
On March 6th 2025, Coeur d’Alene police Detective D. Haley made a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury in order to obtain a search warrant for the emails of the security company Lear Asset Management. On page 8 of that affidavit Detective D. Haley writes:
“Teresa (heckler) did not comply with Sheriff Norris’ attempt to physically remove her from her seat. He then took the phone from Jesse (Lear employee) and told Jesse and Christofer (Lear employee) to remove Teresa and several others around her.”
Video shows this is EXACTLY what happened. Remember that under Idaho law the Sheriff shall “command the aid of as many inhabitants of the county as he may think necessary in the execution of these duties.” Because of this, if the Sheriff commands you to aid him and you do, you cannot be charged with a crime for complying with his lawful command.
But charging the security employees with a crime for assisting the Sheriff is exactly what the Coeur d’Alene police are contemplating.
CDAPD’s April 4, 2025, Incident Report (24C08232), with Haley as the responsible officer, lists potential charges against security: battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and city code violations. How?
On page 16 Hanley remarkably claims: “There was no direct statement by Norris stating that he was asking for their assistance in removal of Teresa or the other females.”
This directly conflicts with Haley’s March 6 affidavit, where he swore Norris “told Jesse and Christofer to remove Teresa.” This Search Warrant Affidavit was not released to the public but was obtained with a FOIA request so its existence is not generally known, until now.
Video supports the original statement: Sheriff Norris DID direct security to remove Teresa.
This isn’t minor. It’s a material difference that could wrongly criminalize innocent people.
Haley even notes on page 3: “Sheriff Norris’s actions and any actions taken by Lear employees under his direction must be evaluated under Idaho Code 31-2202.” So why contradict himself? If charges are filed, defense counsel will expose these conflicting statements, challenging CDAPD’s credibility.
Remember, Idaho Code §31-2202(5) mandates “the Sheriff shall … command the aid of as many inhabitants of the county as he may think necessary in the execution of these duties.” He doesn’t need to deputize or fill out a form or make a formal statement. He simply needs to “command,” which he clearly did.
Christa Hazel is a local progressive activist and self-described Biden/Harris supporter. She claims the title “Juris Doctor” which is a fancy way of saying she studied but never passed the Bar Exam. In a recent article she tries to obfuscate the truth and misdirect you with a bushel of irrelevant arguments, lies, and an apparent distain for the right against self-incrimination articulated in the 5th Amendment. No real lawyer would advise their client to talk to police if they were the subject of an investigation. Hazel attempts to blind you from the truth by flinging excrement in your face.
The truth is clear: agitators attempted to disrupt a lawful meeting, the sheriff acted within his authority, and CDAPD’s story keeps shifting. It’s no surprise. Liberals and Democrats have orchestrated disruptions at Republican town halls nationwide, from Idaho to D.C. Letting such disruptors go unpunished while persecuting organizers and security trying to maintain an orderly event sets a dangerous precedent, inviting more chaos.
Don’t be fooled.
It’s just common sense.
