Is the Sheriff Getting Special Treatment?

Guest Editorial by Timothy Braatz

On February 22, at a “town hall” in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (CDA), sponsored by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee (KCRCC), a gang of five men, at the direction of Sheriff Robert Norris, attacked a woman named Teresa Borrenpohl. The five men—unmarked agents of the LEAR paramilitary company—also physically accosted several other attendees.

CDA prosecutors, following recommendations by police detective Daniel Haley, have charged the LEAR gang with battery and false imprisonment. No charges, so far, against Sheriff Norris, and Det. Haley didn’t recommend any. In fact, Haley’s incident report, based on interviews and extensive video footage, carefully downplayed the sheriff’s involvement, didn’t even comment on his blatant violation of First Amendment rights to free speech.

At the “town hall,” which included a panel of state legislators, Sheriff Norris was intent on silencing dissent. According to Haley, “When the cheering would occur, the speakers would have to stop speaking more often than when the ‘against’ comments occurred.” Norris had no problem with disruptive cheering, but he acted harshly against the critics.

For example, audience member Ben Stallings, in response to a panelist’s medical comments, shouted, “Are you a doctor?” Norris immediately told Stallings to leave. Similarly, Norris ordered Borrenpohl to get out because he didn’t like her comments. Stalling complied; Borrenpohl did not; Norris escalated. He threatened Borrenpohl with arrest and pepper spray. He pulled on her arm. Then he directed LEAR agents Jesse Jones and Christopher Berg to remove her from the auditorium.

As Haley’s report explains, Norris said to Jones, “Get me a video.” Jones did as instructed, using his phone to record Borrenpohl’s refusal to leave. A few moment later, Norris took the phone from Jones and pointed out Borrenpohl and her friend Laura Tenneson. “Those two,” he said. “She’s holding on to her. She’s got to be removed too.”

This is where Haley’s report gets weird. He wrote, “This is the only statement that could be construed as an order to assist, or request for assistance from Norris to LEAR.” But a few moments later—according to Haley’s own narrative—Norris reiterated to Jones, “Those two are out.” Jones yanked on Borrenpohl’s arm. She called out several times, “Sheriff Norris, this man is assaulting me!” Rather than intervene, Norris told Jones and Berg, “Get her out of here.” They responded by intensifying their attack on Borrenpohl.

Norris’s rampage against free speech wasn’t over. Caught up in ego and anger (and possibly hatred), he headed up the aisle and, without explanation, told another woman, “You’re out!”—at least the fifth person he had so ordered. Then he turned his attention to a man named Gregg Johnson, who had shouted at Jones and Berg, “Hey, leave her alone!” Norris threatened Johnson with arrest if he didn’t leave, then pushed him out to the lobby and pinned him against a wall with the help of LEAR gang leader Paul Trouette. According to Haley’s report, “Norris leaves Paul to hold onto Gregg”—just as he had left Jones and Berg to hold Borrenpohl. (For more on Norris and Trouette’s love of threat power, follow this link.)

Clearly, Norris, with his take-charge, bullying attitude, had assumed authority. Earlier, he had ordered the event moderator to halt the proceedings. After confronting Borrenpohl, Norris told the moderator, in Haley’s words, “to get him two more security officers.” KCRCC chairman Brent Regan claimed that “nothing was done without [Norris] being aware.” KCRCC member Marc Stewart observed Norris directing the LEAR crew, assisted by his “special deputy advisor” Bruce Mattare (a county commissioner and formerly Norris’s campaign advisor).

Det. Haley could have emphasized the synergy between Norris and the LEAR crew—the cooperation, the unspoken teamwork, their interaction even before the audience arrived. He could have noted that Norris, rather than trying to stop the LEAR agents from committing battery and false imprisonment, led by word and by example.

Instead, Haley argued, unconvincingly, that the LEAR gang was operating on their own initiative, independent of orders from Norris. For example: 1) “Sheriff Norris was no where around and by no indications gave them orders to physically remove” one of the victims; 2) “At no time did I hear Norris ask for Paul’s assistance and or order him to help”; and 3) “There was no direct statement by Norris stating that he was asking for their assistance in removal of Teresa or the other females.”

The report’s implication, intended or not, is that because Norris never loudly stated, “As Sheriff of Kootenai County, I am officially requesting and ordering Mr. Trouette, on the 22nd of February, 2025, with Commissioner Mattare as my witness, to assist me in removing and detaining this individual,” he is in no way responsible for any of the battery and false imprisonment.

Why did Det. Haley go out of his way, even contradict his own evidence, to exculpate Norris? Before assuming the detective is protecting a fellow officer, consider other explanations.

Two days after the “town hall,” CDA officials revoked LEAR’s security license. In appealing this decision, Trouette cited Idaho code and claimed that he and his fellow attackers “were only acting at the direction of the county sheriff” and “could not lawfully refuse” the sheriff’s “direct lawful order.”

Perhaps Haley thought it necessary to refute this potential legal defense. However, in implying that all of Norris’s actions were lawful—rather than distinguishing between when Norris abused his power and when the LEAR suspects acted on their own initiative—Haley may have actually strengthened Trouette’s claims. A jury may conclude that if the sheriff was in the right, then so were his LEAR subordinates.

Perhaps prosecutors are still considering charges. Norris’s case is complicated—a sworn law officer acting as a private citizen, like a LEAR agent with an official badge. He identified himself as sheriff, but never arrested or charged any of his victims, didn’t request CDA police support before taking violent action, supposedly never wrote an official report of the incident, and, like the LEAR gang, has refused to cooperate with the police investigation. Haley wrote, regarding Norris, “Legality of actions to be determined.”

Perhaps the actions of other individuals should be similarly evaluated. Haley’s report does suggest some element of premeditation in the targeting of Borrenpohl (though omits Norris’s earlier derisive public comments about her).

At least three days before the “town hall,” KCRCC member Luke Sommer arranged for his friend Trouette to provide event “security.” LEAR’s action plan, titled “Legislative Town Hall and Security Advance,” said the gang would “warn those who are disruptive in the meeting to cease, or they will be removed.” According to KCRCC chairman Brent Regan, this was because they knew from social media that Borrenpohl would attend. Haley’s report doesn’t identify KCRCC’s social media spy.

It does identify videographer Jeremy Lokken as the spy at the “town hall.” According to Haley, Lokken’s footage, from three different cameras, included “multiple times where Jeremy would zoom in on people’s cell phones so closely that the messages were readable. This was specifically done to people seated in the areas where the groups [had protest] signs.”

After Borrenpohl arrived (seventeen minutes late), Lokken adjusted his onstage “crowd camera” to center on her. The camera caught Trouette, Norris, and Regan hovering around Borrenpohl. At the same time, the moderator, Ed Bejarana, singled out Borrenpohl for hateful insults.

Lokken has a history of political targeting. In June 2022, Lokken filmed a drag performance in a Coeur d'Alene park. At home, he zoomed in on footage of a performer’s crotch. According to Lokken’s court testimony, he increased the brightness and magnified the photo to the point of blurriness. Satisfied that the blurred image could be falsely interpreted as a glimpse of testicle, he spliced in some footage of children. Then he sent his video creation to a blogger named Summer Bushnell, who, knowing it was all a lie, publicly claimed the performer had “flashed his genitalia to minors.” The drag performer sued Bushnell for defamation, and, in 2024, a unanimous jury awarded him $1.1 million.

Speaking of creepy, Haley reported “a lot of cheering” while Jones and Berg were assaulting Borrenpohl. As the two men dragged her up the aisle, attendees shouted “Bye, Teresa” and “Remove the trash.” Some people, it seems, are so consumed by partisan politics that they are quick to abandon any Christian compassion and First Amendment values, even basic human decency.

For such folks, it might be useful to take politics out of the story. Imagine a high school basketball game. An off-duty policeman in the bleachers notices a few women cheering loudly for the visiting team. He flashes his badge and orders one of them to leave. When she declines, he yanks her arm, then shoves her toward the exit. He orders a school security guard, “Get her out.” Then he returns to accost another of the enthusiastic women.

Would you tolerate such behavior from your local law officer? Would you cheer the assault and blame the victim? Would you remain silent if the officer wasn’t properly disciplined for abuse of power? Would you fail to see the long-term implications of allowing public officials to get away with bullying, violence, and contempt for the Constitution?

---

About the Author

Timothy Braatz is a historian of nonviolence, a playwright, novelist, and Peace Studies instructor. His books include Peace Lessons, From Ghetto to Death Camp, and Surviving Conquest.

---

Editorial & Guest Post Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in guest editorials and submitted articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Political Potatoes or its creator. Publishing these articles does not imply endorsement. We believe in elevating thoughtful perspectives from credible individuals across the political spectrum—because good ideas aren’t partisan.

The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.

Want to share your voice?
We welcome submissions for guest editorials and op-eds. If you have something worth saying, contact Political Potatoes for details on how to contribute. All submissions are subject to editorial review and curation.