# Detention of reporter - kosher or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672 "2010-10-19T16:46:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/101 "2010-10-20T14:12:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perfectly acceptable meaning, of course, but then the response to the first comment about probable cause should be, “I have no idea if it was technically legal and don’t particularly care; I’m pointing out that anyone with a brain can see it was pretextual and exposes the fact that Miller wants to dodge these issues so badly he’ll permit a reporter to be arrested on a pretext instead of answering.” > > To which the only possible response is: “Yep.” My apologies. Thank you **Marley23** I thought the meaning of the OP was pretty freakin’ obvious, and i forgot that lawyers would weigh into the thread at some point to argue icayune details I guess I should also point out that I was not asking if the arrest had been blessed or authorized by a rabbi. And seriously, thank you **Bricker** for forcing us to be precise in our language around legal terms and matters. So… Now that we can all agree that “anyone with a brain can see it was pretextual and exposes the fact that Miller wants to dodge these issues so badly he’ll permit a reporter to be arrested on a pretext instead of answering.”"… What should the repercussions of this “arrest” be? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/102 "2010-10-20T14:22:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is why convictions, rather than arrests, are typically the benchmark by which previous adverse law enforcement encounters are measured. You could as well ask what answer should be given if an officer performed the arrest and it was later found to be illegal. > > But since Alaska law clearly contemplates a completed arrest the moment the offense is observed and the arrestee restrained, this is an arrest. Oh I agree with the same question if it was performed by a cop. But I am torn here. On the one hand, what you are saying makes sense. On the other, I am not sure “false arrests” is a subset of “arrests” - and if this is false arrest it was false arrest the moment it happened not when it is later determined to be a false arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/103 "2010-10-20T14:49:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What should the repercussions of this “arrest” be? They should be political, of course; people will read this news story and reach unfavorable conclusions about the candidate. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/104 "2010-10-20T15:07:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe “kosher” is confusing. To me, kosher refers to those things in compliance with the law of _kasruth_. So to ask if a detention is kosher is to ask if it was in compliance with the law of detentions. Do you, a Christian, educated in the United States, with a very wide vocabularly and extensive, nay, volumous exposure to written and oral arguments and a very wide range of writing really believe the words that are coming out of your mouth. An act is commited in seeming contravention of acceptable standards of behaviour, if not the law (which is yet to be determined), someone asks “was that kosher” and your first repsonse is to examine it to see if it was in compliance to kasruth. All I can say Bricker, is that if ever I commit a murder, and I want someone to sell my side of the story to the jury with absolute conviction I will be calling you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/105 "2010-10-20T16:05:19Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Do you, a Christian, educated in the United States, with a very wide vocabularly and extensive, nay, volumous exposure to written and oral arguments and a very wide range of writing really believe the words that are coming out of your mouth. > > An act is commited in seeming contravention of acceptable standards of behaviour, if not the law (which is yet to be determined), someone asks “was that kosher” and your first repsonse is to examine it to see if it was in compliance to kasruth. > > All I can say Bricker, is that if ever I commit a murder, and I want someone to sell my side of the story to the jury with absolute conviction I will be calling you. Don’t be ridiculous. Asking if a detention is “kosher” is asking if all the rules were followed, if it’s legitimate. It doesn’t literally mean does it comport with the laws of _kasruth_; it means “Does it comport with applicable laws?” or “Is it legitimate?” or “Were the rules followed?” And in further demonstration of the correctness of my position, when I raised the question, you’ll note that the responses were not, “I’m not talking about whether the arrest followed the rules,” or “I’m only pointing out that this flouted acceptable standards of polite behavior!” No, no – there were multiple attempts to justify the position that the action was illegal. And, indeed, one of those bore fruit: the observation that the hallway was not rented and thus any “trespass” in the hall was nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/106 "2010-10-20T16:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They should be political, of course; people will read this news story and reach unfavorable conclusions about the candidate. I’m uncomfortable with this being the only repercussion, particularly when the candidate is currently publishing his own “spin” on the matter; From his website “Liberal Blogger “Loses It” at Town Hall Meeting Obsession with Republican Nominee leads to physical assault, publicity stunt” Compliant media will cover “both sides” - the truth, and the spin of “assault” that the candidate has put on it. Note that there was no charge of physical assault against the reporter, only accusations. Miller is probably open to charges of libel, but he knows that the reporter won’t ever go there. When a reporter is the victim, they are understandably reluctant to press charges, as they want to be seen to be unbiased, and may want to continue to cover the election and the candidate. What happens then, is the candidate wins; They have succeeded in stopping embarrassing questions by physically detaining a reporter, they have created a chilling effect for future reporters asking questions, and they are free to publish a false story about what actually happened. Who loses? The electorate. The press. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/107 "2010-10-20T18:25:04Z")
With apologies if this was answered above, but I don’t see how the reporter’s conduct in anyway qualifies as criminal trespass. As 11.46.350 says in relevant part: > [@](#): > > AS 11.46.350. Definition. > > (a) As used in AS 11.46.300 - 11.46.350, unless the context requires otherwise, “enter or remain unlawfully” means to > > (1) enter or remain in or upon premises or in a propelled vehicle when the premises or propelled vehicle, at the time of the entry or remaining, is not open to the public and when the defendant is not otherwise privileged to do so; > > (2) fail to leave premises or a propelled vehicle that is open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so personally by the person in charge; or > > (3) enter or remain upon premises or in a propelled vehicle in violation of a provision in an order issued or filed under AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180 or issued under former AS 25.35.010 (b) or 25.35.020. > > (b) For purposes of this section, a person who, without intent to commit a crime on the land, enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, is privileged to do so unless > > (1) notice against trespass is personally communicated to that person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person; or > > (2) notice against trespass is given by posting in a reasonably conspicuous manner under the circumstances. It seems that the arresting persons fail AS 11.46.350(b)(2) in that they did not appear to be authorized persons. I will leave it to someone else to search Alaska case law to see whether the personal notice under (b)(2) above must be reasonable or not, or if notice delivered at minute 1 second 0 makes one a trespassor at minute 1, second 1. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/108 "2010-10-20T18:28:57Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > It seems that the arresting persons fail AS 11.46.350(b)(2) in that they did not appear to be authorized persons. No, they were. Since the trespass question is mooted by the hallway, I will provide a cite on request for the “authorized person” part of the formula, but the short answer is that any person authorized by the owner is acceptable here. In other words, it’s not trespass for other reasons, so this is a question of only academic interest, but since I did see case law on point, I will post it if anyone cares. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/109 "2010-10-20T18:40:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they were. > > Since the trespass question is mooted by the hallway, I will provide a cite on request for the “authorized person” part of the formula, but the short answer is that any person authorized by the owner is acceptable here. > > In other words, it’s not trespass for other reasons, so this is a question of only academic interest, but since I did see case law on point, I will post it if anyone cares. I’d appreciate the cite Bricker. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/110 "2010-10-20T18:59:03Z")
> [@](#): > > We believe that any possible vagueness that the phrase, “after being lawfully directed [to leave the premises] personally by the person in charge,” imports into the statute is cured by literally reading the statute in light of the applicable mens rea. The jury must find that the premises were open to the public, that Johnson was personally ordered to leave the premises, **that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order** , and that the order was legally effective to terminate Johnson’s license or privilege to utilize the premises. (emphasis added) _Johnson v. State_, 739 P. 2d 781 (Al. App 1987). In _Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage_, a city ordinance similar in wording to the state’s criminal trespass statute is discussed: > [@](#): > > Appellants’ second attack on the sufficiency of the complaints is that Anchorage Municipal Code 8.30.010(B)(3)[5] requires that a trespasser be requested to depart from the premises by an “owner or occupant” before he can be found to have violated that ordinance. Mingo, the security supervisor for the whole Hospital-Clinic building, was, according to appellants, neither an owner nor an occupant of the building and therefore was not qualified to request them to leave. > > Beyond his statements that he was “the building security supervisor” and that he was “employed by the Teamster[s] Union, Local 959,” there is nothing in the record to indicate the precise nature of Mingo’s employment arrangement with the Hospital or Clinic. Appellants’ attack, however, is not based on the extent of Mingo’s authority to act on behalf of the Clinic; it depends, rather, on a very literal reading of the trespass statute. Appellants’ claim assumes without argument that under the ordinance, an “owner or occupant” can never make the request that trespassers depart by acting through an agent. In the absence of argument or authority to the contrary, we see no reason for suspending the general common law of agency in construing section 8.30.010(B)(3) of the Anchorage Municipal Code. Other courts have reasoned similarly. See Johnson v. State, 277 Ala. 655, 173 So.2d 824, 827-28 (1965); People v. Thompson, 56 Ill. App.3d 557, 14 Ill.Dec. 312, 372 N.E.2d 117, 121-22 (1978). The record indicates that Mingo was a duly authorized agent of an “owner or occupant” of the Clinic acting within the scope of his employment, and his request that appellants leave the premises therefore satisfied the requirements of Anchorage Municipal Code 8.30.010(B)(3). Thus we also reject this facet of appellants’ attack on the sufficiency of the complaints. _Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage_, 631 P. 2d 1073 (Alaska 1981). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/111 "2010-10-20T19:09:17Z")
As for the shoving, that would only be probable cause if the arrest were for shoving. It was not; the arrest was for trespass. Even if there were probable cause to suspect one crime, that is not justification for arrest for a completely different crime. And of course, I’m sure that things get even stickier when the person ordering the “trespasser” to leave also physically impedes that person from leaving. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/112 "2010-10-20T19:46:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > As for the shoving, that would only be probable cause if the arrest were for shoving. It was not; the arrest was for trespass. Even if there were probable cause to suspect one crime, that is not justification for arrest for a completely different crime. Not true: > [@](#): > > Fulton said he placed the journalist, Alaska Dispatch editor and founder Tony Hopfinger, under a private person’s arrest, which in Alaska is like a citizen’s arrest in other states. > . > . > . > Fulton said he arrested Hopfinger for trespassing **and assault**. He said he had the right to arrest him for trespass because the campaign had rented the space from the school district and had the right to exclude anyone, though the district said it rented the cafeteria, stage and parking lot, not the hall where the arrest took place. This [information was provided in post #10.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13042089&postcount=10) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/113 "2010-10-21T01:17:50Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I’m uncomfortable with this being the only repercussion, particularly when the candidate is currently publishing his own “spin” on the matter; From his website “Liberal Blogger “Loses It” at Town Hall Meeting Obsession with Republican Nominee leads to physical assault, publicity stunt” Compliant media will cover “both sides” - the truth, and the spin of “assault” that the candidate has put on it. > > Note that there was no charge of physical assault against the reporter, only accusations. Miller is probably open to charges of libel, but he knows that the reporter won’t ever go there. > > When a reporter is the victim, they are understandably reluctant to press charges, as they want to be seen to be unbiased, and may want to continue to cover the election and the candidate. > > What happens then, is the candidate wins; They have succeeded in stopping embarrassing questions by physically detaining a reporter, they have created a chilling effect for future reporters asking questions, and they are free to publish a false story about what actually happened. > > Who loses? The electorate. The press. I would go a bit further than the idea of the reporter seeming to be unbiased.. What reporter wants even the slightest implication against his name that he takes any sort of case, charges or whatever against newsmakers? That’s not really very good for your career right? I can imagine the scenario…Christine O’Donnel gets an interview request from him…say weren’t you the guy that charged that other fellah with slander / libel? Uhmmm…no thanks, I don’t want to run that risk… ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/114 "2010-10-21T11:53:38Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I can imagine the scenario…Christine O’Donnel gets an interview request from him…say weren’t you the guy that charged that other fellah with slander / libel? Uhmmm…no thanks, I don’t want to run that risk… If there were criminal charges, they would be something like false arrest, not slander or libel (there’s no real argument for slander and those are grounds for lawsuits, not criminal charges). But given that this incident lasted all of half an hour and it can only harm the reporter’s career, there won’t be any charges. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/115 "2010-10-21T14:12:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If there were criminal charges, they would be something like false arrest, not slander or libel (there’s no real argument for slander and those are grounds for lawsuits, not criminal charges). But given that this incident lasted all of half an hour and it can only harm the reporter’s career, there won’t be any charges. **bengangmo** was explaining why THE REPORTER would not press charges, even though he was wrongfully detained. Also why the reporter would not pursue a private case of libel, even if the candidate for senate publishes obvious lies about the reporter. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/116 "2010-10-21T14:23:00Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > **bengangmo** was explaining why THE REPORTER would not press charges, even though he was wrongfully detained. I made the same point in post #80. I was agreeing with **bengangmo** that there are not going to be any charges filed. > [@](#): > > Also why the reporter would not pursue a private case of libel, even if the candidate for senate publishes obvious lies about the reporter. I didn’t see that that part was a hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/117 "2010-10-21T16:25:49Z")
What continues to piss me off about this is that the bully wins. I hate it when the bully wins. Questions about the candidates questionable past business dealings were not answered. Hopfinger was physically detained and falsely held against his will. Bullshit statements damaging to Hopfinger’s career are put on a website with no repercussions. And most importantly - a message is sent to the press: Question me and I will have you chained to a stairwell with impunity and publish lies about you to damage your reputation. I will control what the press asks, when they ask it and when they can speak to me. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/118 "2010-10-21T19:35:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The jury must find that the premises were open to the public, that Johnson was personally ordered to leave the premises, **that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order** , and that the order was legally effective to terminate Johnson’s license or privilege to utilize the premises. > > (emphasis added) > > _Johnson v. State_, 739 P. 2d 781 (Al. App 1987). Question, **Bricker** : suppose I’m at that event, and some goon with a headset tells me to leave. He may have been authorized by the owner (or lessor) of the premises to give the order, but how the heck do I know that? And does the law take it into account if the goon hasn’t been willing to answer the question, “who are you, and what gives you have the right to kick me off the premises?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/119 "2010-10-22T11:15:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Question, **Bricker** : suppose I’m at that event, and some goon with a headset tells me to leave. He may have been authorized by the owner (or lessor) of the premises to give the order, but how the heck do I know that? And does the law take it into account if the goon hasn’t been willing to answer the question, “who are you, and what gives you have the right to kick me off the premises?” Sure. The jury has to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, both that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order AND that you knew or should have known that the person who gave the order was authorized by the owner of the premises to give the order. Your knowledge is necessry to establish your _mens rea_. If you believed that the goon was an imposter, then you didn’t have the necessary _mens rea_ to complete the crime. Their judgement has to assess both an objective and a subjective component: they have to find both that subjectively you held a belief he was an imposter AND that this belief was objectively reasonable. So in short: to convict, the prosecution would have to show that either goon answered your question, or there was something else that made it evident to a reasonable person that the goon had the authority. It doesn’t have to be a notarized copy of the contract, though. It just has to be reasonable. If you asked “Who are you?” and got no answer, the jury could certainly infer that you didn’t believe he had any authority… but of course, presumably the prosecution could point to other evidence that should have convinced you. Remember that none of this relates to probable cause, but to what’s necessary to convict. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672/120 "2010-10-22T14:37:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Remember that none of this relates to probable cause, but to what’s necessary to convict. Based on the “_but how the heck do I know that?_”, I think **RTFirefly** is asking specifically about the arrest _as it happens_, not after the fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detention-of-reporter-kosher-or-not/557672.md?page=5)