Four VP Cheney Agents Sued

Lawsuit proceeds against Cheney security team
By Felisa Cardona, The Denver Post, 04/14/2009

A federal judge in Denver has declined to toss out a lawsuit against four U.S. Secret Service agents who arrested a man in Beaver Creek in 2006 after he approached then-Vice President **** Cheney to criticize the Iraq war.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello issued her ruling from the bench this morning and said a jury is going to have to decide the case.

"There are too many disputed issues of material fact to grant summary judgment in this case," Arguello said.

Steven Howards sued the four agents claiming they violated his civil rights after he was arrested for allegedly harassing Cheney in June 2006.

Howards said he simply walked up to Cheney in the Beaver Creek shopping mall, touched him and said his policy in Iraq was "disgusting."

The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Eagle County District Attorney declined to pursue a criminal case against Howards.

The Secret Service agents gave conflicting accounts of the incident in depositions taken by attorneys in the civil case.

But the agents said a number of factors led them to be suspicious of Howards, starting with a cellphone call he made as he spotted Cheney in the Beaver Creek shopping mall.

During the call, Howards said he was going to ask Cheney "how many kids he killed today."

Howards then walked up to Cheney, touched him and made his opposition to the war known.

But the agents say Howards raised their suspicions because he lingered in the mall, was carrying a shopping bag with unknown contents and refused to cooperate when they tried to question him about whether he assaulted Cheney or not.

Howards said he walked away from Cheney, then came back toward the vice president because he was looking for his son, who had accompanied him to the mall.

Judge Arguello said she was concerned about the possibility that Howards' conversation on his cellphone — which is protected under the First Amendment — may have inspired the agents' actions.

"It is very troubling to this court," she said. "(The call) was nothing threatening to the vice president, but it clearly demonstrates opposition to the war in Iraq."

A trial is expected to begin Sept. 28.

How DID the agents know the content of the cell phone call?

His intended question does not seem to indicate an impending assault.

What was the probable cause for the arrest?

First I do not know the precise answers to your questions as all I know is what is in the original posting on the thread. I assume that is also all you know. 1. Regarding the content of the cell phone call, again speculating, at best the agents may have heard only the caller's side of the conversation. 2. Although his question to VP Cheny may not indicate an impending assault, coupled with his other actions; lingering in the mall; carrying a shopping bag with unknown contents; his refusal to cooperate; and last but not least his own statement that he walked away and "then came back towards the Vice President". At that point any agent with his training and background knowledge of previous attacks and assassination attempts on protectees would be derelict in his duties and responsibilities if he/she did not take some type of action to remove the individual from the area. To me the article contrary to the judge's statements does not indicate the agents's actions are based solely on the individual's phone call. We just do not have the answer to that question. I guarantee if the agents had not taken any action and the Vice President was assaulted or injured in any way; this thread correctly would be filled with criticism for the agent's lack of action.

This article says nothing about what offense he was arrested for. I imagine if he "touched" the VP it has something to with simple assault. An offense which requires police to prove the VP felt physically threatened. If he "touched" him and uttered some sort of vieled threat against his personal safety then it was a good arrest.
The article doesnt even say if the person was convicted of whatever he was arrested for. Give us more information and we can have a discussion. . The article makes it seem like he was arrested for what he said, which clearly was not the case.

I don't know what (state) law you are quoting concerning simple assault. In many states the mere touching of another individual (without their permission) can be considered as simple assaulot without the person being touched being concerned about their physical safety.

So if I pat someone on the back and say, good job, thats a crime in some state? Or if I shake someones hand they can later have me arrested?? There is no criminal intent here.
Touching a person is not a crime in any state unless theres some other element to it.
Heres the model penal code and an explanation for a lay person:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
Elements

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Guest "So if I pat someone on the back and say, good job, thats a crime in some state? Or if I shake someones hand they can later have me arrested?? There is no criminal intent here.
Touching a person is not a crime in any state unless theres some other element to it."


The preceding poster paints with too broad a brush in trying to be an expert.

Let's look at Florida law for an example. First off, distinguish between Assault and Battery. Assault can be simply a verbal attack; battery is touching.

Contrary to what the preceding poster asserts, under Florida law there is no requirement for establishing criminal intent to successfully prosecute a person for battery; to wit:

784.03 Battery; felony battery.--

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other ...

It's that simple. No other elements are required. There is an OR in the statute providing for other things that constitute battery, but there is no AND. Number 1, by itself, is a crime. Nothwithstanding all of the generalizations by the other poster to the contrary, there is no need to establish that the person doing the touching had any malevolent intent.

So much for the "any state" statement.

:wink:

Dear Guest you are correct that many states do folow the common law re:assault/battery, however, a little further research on your part will reveal that a number of states have assault/battery laws where apprehension on the part of the person being assaulted or battered is not a necessary element to be convicted of the crime. I have personal knowledege having been a victim of a person sentenced to 10 days in jail for merely the grabbing of my shirt (no apprehension on my part). You might be an attorney because you do obfuscate a very simple matter. If you are an attorney I need to know your identity so I would never unknowingly hire you. An expert you are not.

This article says nothing about what offense he was arrested for. I imagine if he "touched" the VP it has something to with simple assault. An offense which requires police to prove the VP felt physically threatened. If he "touched" him and uttered some sort of vieled threat against his personal safety then it was a good arrest.
The article doesnt even say if the person was convicted of whatever he was arrested for. Give us more information and we can have a discussion. . The article makes it seem like he was arrested for what he said, which clearly was not the case.

This entire discussion has revolved around having Guest "imagine" that touching occurred and the arrest had something to do with assault. Actually, the lawsuit documents indicate he was ASKED if he assaulted the VP. The agents requested that local authorities charge him with a state law violation regarding "harassment." The local prosecutor declined to file the charges. This is not unusual in many local cases; although the police make an arrest, the prosecutor decides not to pursue the charges for various reasons, including the likelihood that a conviction cannot be obtained.

Perhaps the agents were overzealous. It wouldn't be the first time; but it is usually wise to err on the side of caution.

Also, the plaintiff's lawsuit acknowledges the agent was acting within the scope of his employment. This MAY be a bar to a successful suit.

"5. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Defendant was employed as a Secret Service agent and was acting officially and individually within the scope of his duties and employment, under color and authority of state and federal law, and in his official capacities as a
United States Treasury Department employee."

Hummm........ Does anyone see a defect in this filing? The incident occurred in 2006. The suit declares that the agent was an employee of the U.S. Treasury Department. The Secret Service moved from Treasury to Homeland Security in 2003.

:snicker:

I made my post not knowing what he was ever actually charged with or what jurisdiction this occurred, which I made clear. Yes some states have very obscure laws like "harassment" or "disorderly conduct". In many states these laws were thrown out or declared unconstitutionally vague which most are.

I made my post not knowing what he was ever actually charged with or what jurisdiction this occurred, which I made clear. Yes some states have very obscure laws like "harassment" or "disorderly conduct". In many states these laws were thrown out or declared unconstitutionally vague which most are.


The above seems to be pure supposition on your part. These laws have been and are still valid in many states contrary to your posting.

I made my post not knowing what he was ever actually charged with or what jurisdiction this occurred, which I made clear. Yes some states have very obscure laws like "harassment" or "disorderly conduct". In many states these laws were thrown out or declared unconstitutionally vague which most are.


The fact is that you made your post without knowing what you were talking about. Obviously, you still don't.

:devil:

I made my post not knowing what he was ever actually charged with or what jurisdiction this occurred, which I made clear. Yes some states have very obscure laws like "harassment" or "disorderly conduct". In many states these laws were thrown out or declared unconstitutionally vague which most are.


The fact is that you made your post without knowing what you were talking about. Obviously, you still don't.

:devil:

I'll second that statment.

I responded to a general original post with a general answer, why is that so hard to understand. Either way we still dont have the facts of this case.
I do not practice law, I dont know where you get that from.

I responded to a general original post with a general answer, why is that so hard to understand. Either way we still dont have the facts of this case.
I do not practice law, I dont know where you get that from.

From your being pompous, presumptuous, verbose and WRONG!

:lol:

Perhaps you missed your calling. you have the four most prominent attribues listed above.

Perhaps you missed your calling. you have the four most prominent attribues listed above.


No, I wasn't eligible to become a lawyer. My parents were married.

:wink:

Based on my experience as an LEO dealing with left coast war protestors, they can easily become unstable and violent. If a person of ordinary care and prudence saw the vice president walking with his protective detail consisting of federal agents IN A MALL, would he/she really think its appropriate to walk up to them, TOUCH them (it certainly didnt sound like a handshake, I'm guessing he pointed at him and may have accidentally made contact at the very least), and begin talking about how he doesnt like one of his policies after talking on your phone and telling an unknown person on the other line that Cheney is there and you're going to approach him? This wasn't at a political debate, it was a mall where the VP was vulnerable to an attack. That guy deserved to get arrested. That Judge needs to remove her head from her back side; what message is she sending? Its okay to approach and make physical contact with a protected political figure who you dont like? Take your rose colored glasses off folks. 1 in 4 presidents have had assassination attempts against them. In the post 9/11 world, if you act like a jacka** towards a protectee, the USSS is going to righteously do their job.