City argues for fees, costs in Festival gun lawsuit

SANDPOINT — First District Judge Lansing Haynes took under advisement Tuesday arguments over legal fees the city is seeking from Bonner County after prevailing in a legal action involving a firearms prohibition during the annual Festival at Sandpoint concert series.

Peter Erbland, counsel for the city, argued Sandpoint should be awarded $92,759 in attorney fees and $2,148 in court costs as a matter of law. Erbland based the argument on a section of Idaho Code which holds that reasonable fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party when governmental entities clash in court.

"We are the prevailing party," said Erbland, who participated in the hearing via videoconferencing.

Erbland said the legislative intent of the code section is meant to discourage one governmental subdivision from using taxpayer dollars to go after another.

"They wanted to stick their nose in the business of the city of Sandpoint," said Erbland, who called the county's quest for declaratory judgment in the dispute a "fool's errand."

The city became the target of the county's litigation because it leases War Memorial Field to the nonprofit Festival so it can stage its annual waterfront concert series.

Idaho law forbids the curtailment of Second Amendment rights on public lands. The city contends the Festival, as a lessee, has the right to draft its own security policies when it rents the field. The Festival said it began enforcing the firearms prohibition in order to meet contractual obligations of artists who perform during the event.

Haynes ruled last month that the county lacked standing to bring the litigation and granted a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case. The county is appealing the ruling to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Bonner County is opposing the city's motion for fees and costs, contending that it was necessary to bring the action because Sheriff Daryl Wheeler would be tasked with placing people in jail for something which could be unconstitutional. Moreover, the county believes there could be an armed protest if the firearms prohibition would be allowed to stand.

"This issue is going to raise its head again," said the county's counsel, Amy Clemmons, who also took part in the hearing by way of videoconferencing.

Clemmons further argued that the county was doing the city a favor because declaratory judgment would have settled the question of the firearms ban and spared the city multiple lawsuits filed by Second Amendment advocates.

"It was the city's actions that drew the county into this mess, not the other way around," Clemmons added.

Erbland scoffed at the notion that the county was trying to help the city out.

"All you've done is cause taxpayers to lose $95,000," said Erbland.

Haynes asked whether a partial award of fees and costs on the narrow issue of standing would suffice.

"Much of that legal work may be usable," Haynes said in reference to a second lawsuit over the issue filed by two residents and the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance.

But Erbland said the city had no choice but to parse through all of the legal arguments in the county's suit, not just the issue of standing.

"We were under a necessary legal obligation," said Erbland.

After hearing the arguments, Haynes said he would issue a written decision on the awarding of fees.