Tort claim filed against Omodt, Bradshaw

▶️ Audio story available.

SANDPOINT — A Bonner County resident has filed a tort claim against Bonner County commissioners Steve Bradshaw and Luke Omodt claiming he was illegally trespassed from the building.

Rick Cramer filed the tort in response to him and Dave Bowman being trespassed from the Bonner County Administration Building for one year at a Jan. 26 special meeting. The men were directed to immediately leave but neither did. When neither of the men agreed to leave, Omodt placed them under citizen’s arrest, and they were eventually arrested by Sandpoint Police.

It is unclear whether the actions of the board, and Omodt personally, were legal, and Cramer’s tort alleges they were not. The tortious conduct outlined in the 23-page document includes deprivation of civil rights under color of state laws, false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, and violation of public meeting laws.

“Bonner County does not have an ordinance authorizing the chairman to trespass individuals from future county meetings,” the tort said. “Bonner County code … only permits the chair to remove a person for unrecognized or disruptive comments at that meeting.”

Cramer also contends that to this day, no motion has been made or passed to trespass him from any meetings. Omodt, according to Cramer, did not have the authority to act on this issue or unilaterally give notice of trespass without approval from the whole board.

Without an approved motion to trespass him, Cramer contends that Omodt had no authority to issue a trespass or arrest him.

“Chairman Omodt knew or should have known that the board of county commissioners control Bonner County public property, not the chairman acting alone,” Cramer said in the tort.

Additionally, Cramer was not given the right to contest or appeal the trespass, which he believes is a violation.

“The oral notice of trespass did not provide [Cramer] notice of the right to contest the decisions to trespass, nor did the oral notice of trespass provide [Cramer] notice of any opportunity to appeal the decision to trespass,” according to the tort. “Chairman Omodt erroneously deprived [Cramer] of his civil rights or liberty interests, and such erroneous deprivations of liberty are the very object due process was designed to prevent.”

The tort also claims that part of Omodt’s reasoning for the trespass was because of “threats to engage in ‘lawfare.’” Cramer said he believes the trespass was an attempt to retaliate against him for the perceived threat of legal action against the commissioners.

Another complaint cited in the tort is that Cramer was seemingly trespassed for prior disruptive behavior, which he claims is illegal.

“Chairman Omodt cannot nunc pro tunc remove [Cramer] at a subsequent meeting for a disruption of a prior meeting,” the tort said. “Chairman Omodt does not have the lawful authority to trespass citizens from attending future meetings. A prospective ban that targets a citizen’s speech is unreasonable. If a citizen is disruptive or otherwise abusive during a public meeting, then he may be ordered to leave that meeting.”

Imposing a complete ban on a resident’s entry into the entire building “clearly exceeds the bounds of reasonableness” of law, the tort claims. To not allow someone because of possible or assumed disruption is a possible violation of rights.

“The law requires [Cramer] to disrupt the actual meeting he is attending before Chairman Omodt may remove him from that meeting,” the tort said.

Cramer also contends that he never threatened violence, whether verbally, physically or in written form during or because of the meetings. He also claims he has never authorized or encouraged others to do so, either.

Cramer alleged in the tort that Omodt trespassed him purely because he holds opposing beliefs to the chairman, which causes friction.

“The trespass notice was not uniformly given to similarly situated persons and was selectively applied based on [Cramer’s] viewpoints or associations,” the tort said.

After being notified that he was trespassed, Cramer refused to leave the meeting and was subsequently placed under citizen’s arrest by Omodt until Sandpoint Police arrived — another action the tort claims was illegal. 

“Chairman Omodt acted with malicious intent to arrest [Cramer] without probable cause,” the tort said. “Chairman Omodt did not sign an affidavit of probable cause to arrest [Cramer] and deliver such an affidavit to a peace officer, magistrate, court or prosecuting attorney.”

Cramer contends that he has suffered widespread reputational harm because of this incident, which has been picked up by newspapers in Idaho as well as Washington.

In a press conference held by Omodt Jan. 30, the tort claims that Omodt made many more false statements regarding Cramer, all of which have harmed his reputation. The tort alleges that Omodt acted with malice in doing so, especially by having his statements published on news sites where he knew they would reach a wide audience.

“[Cramer] is significantly embarrassed, harmed and damaged by the wrongful arrest,” the tort said. “[Cramer] enjoyed a reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. He has never been convicted of any crime of violence. [Cramer] categorically rejects and denounces unlawful threats of violence and violence.”

The tort also accuses Bradshaw of providing false information to the press, such as claiming Cramer has engaged in violent and disorderly behavior, “amounting to an organized insurrection, and posed a risk of being a mass shooter, violently threatening staff.”

“Briefly speaking out of turn when not recognized by the chair does not amount to an insurrection,” the tort said.

Another complaint listed in the tort is Cramer’s inability to attend meetings in person, which prevents him from attending multiple gatherings, as not all of them are streamed online. Even if all the meetings were streamed, the tort claims they would be “constitutionally inadequate” as Cramer has signed up to speak during public comment online but was denied the opportunity.

By being trespassed from the Administration Building as a whole, Cramer has also been barred from accessing other government services or utilizing any other government offices housed within the same building.

“[Cramer’s] damages are ongoing because he has a cognizable fear that he will be physically arrested again if he attends a meeting or enters the county Administration Building,” the tort said. “His speech, assembly and association has been chilled.”

Cramer is requesting $750,000 in damages from either Bonner County, Omodt or Bradshaw. Additionally, the tort demands that Cramer’s trespass be lifted and that he again be allowed to attend in-person meetings at the Administration Building.

“Effective civil government requires the free exchange of thoughts and ideas,” the tort said. “It works best when commissioners hear all points of view before making a decision … Bonner County must compensate [Cramer] for his damages suffered, and to further compensate him in an amount that will prevent and deter Bonner County and its governing officials from depriving citizens of their civil rights.”