Nov. Hearing re: Security at KCRCC Town Hall

I attended the 11/24/25 hearing regarding the KCRCC Town Hall were a disruptive woman was removed and the security guards involved were charged with misdeamoners. All of the charges have been dismissed against all the security guards with one exception. There were 4 lawyers representing various defendants, and one attorney representing the city of CDA. Here is a summary of notes/observations from that day.

The courtroom the hearing was held in was small. It was packed with local people from both sides. Motion to dismiss was up first. Brent Regan, KCRCC Chairman, was called as a witness. He testified that the security was not paid, that they volunteered. CDA City Attorney asked Regan if it was a public or private event. Regan said the public was invited. Regan mentioned that the MC for the event admonished the interrupters, including Borrenphol, during the town hall. John Howard, KCRCC Treasurer, testified that he didn’t issue a check for security - he only issued a check to the CDA School District for the rental of the facility. Multiple affidavits were submitted, the CDA City attorney objected due to not being able to question the people who wrote the affidavits. Judge overruled the objection.

An attorney for some of the defendants argued for the motion to dismiss. He stated that the Sheriff has the lawful authority to ask others to assist per the letter from Attorney General Raúl Labrador. When a public facility is rented there is a right to possess and have the right to remove people. He also mentioned that security volunteers, just like church security teams, are not under CDA City code since they are not being paid. Another defendant attorney quoted CDA School District policies and statements support the ability of a renter of their facilities to be able to remove and prevent disruptions.

The CDA City Attorney spoke against the motion to dismiss. He said that the Sheriff has no trepass authority. That the school district or the KCRCC needed to give the sheriff that authority. That no rights/abilites were granted. The city attorney also stated that only the principal of a school can trespass someone off of school district property. Finally, he stated that it wasn’t a town hall like the flyer said, that it was a lecture by/for certain candidates. That is why it was disrupted. (This lead to me trying not to laugh out loud in the courtroom.)

One of the defendants lawyers mentioned Idaho Code 19-205. If the Sheriff has the authority to act, then 19-205 applies to the defendants. The judge mentions Rule 48. She says no matter if I dismiss or not this will be appealed. Mentions she will issue a written ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The judge move on to jury instructions. There was a discussion on security agents as mentioned in CDA city code. Does it apply to volunteers? They are not in the “business of” if they are volunteering. Judge mentions that 19-205 shows that the public is allowed to assume that the sheriff is able to make the determination of the need for assistance. The CDA City attorney said that the statue is being used incorrectly.

One of the defendants attorneys stated that if a citizen has the protection of law when following the sheriff’s orders, then they shouldn’t have to worry about being prosecuted for aiding a lawful order. The CDA city attorney responded saying that citizens are not required to follow the orders of the Sheriff. They are not obligated to comply. The defendants had to decided if it was appropriate to assist.

Another defendant attorney responded saying that requiring a person to evaluate all circumstances when a sheriff has asked for assistance could lead to injury or death. Judge says that if the jury finds that sheriff made a lawful order then no one should be charged. One of the defendants attorneys agrees and says that if Sheriffs order was lawful then defendants are not guilty. He goes on to ask how can the defendants in this hearing be charged if the Sheriff wasn't charged. The CDA city attorney states that he was not allowed to determine if the sheriff can be charged. The Idaho Attorney General made that determination. The city attorney states that the public is not required to assist law enforcement.

One of the defendants attorneys says that the jury needs to know why Borrenphols behavior warranted being expelled. He wants to show all aspects of her bevhaior that led to the issue at this town hall. He wants the jury to know about her history of activism and disruption. The city attorney expresses concern about the focus being turned towards what Borrenphol did. He wants the Sheriff to testify regarding the command he gave at the town hall otherwise the command is hearsay. The judge says a command is not hearsay.

Pre-trial conference on 12/18/25. Jury Trial on 12/15/25