Collinson vs. Norris: A Legal Battle in Kootenai County

Sheriff Bob Norris Under Legal Fire

Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris is currently embroiled in one lawsuit, two Tort claims totaling $7.5 million, and one criminal proceeding in which he has material involvement. Is this a well-planned political attack on a blameless sheriff, or is this simply what must occur when a law enforcement officer collides directly with the Law?

For the sake of brevity, I’m focusing on the first lawsuit stemming from the Cataldo Town Hall in April 2024. I’ve read the detailed Complaint and the Answer. These are my conclusions.

Cataldo Town Hall Defamation Allegations

In a candidates’ forum in Cataldo in April 2024, Bob Norris is accused of asserting that a photographer in the crowd was obsessed with child porn and enjoyed oral sex and giving blow jobs. These allegations are supported by multiple affidavits submitted to the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Sheriff Norris’s Initial Response: Denial and Reward Offer

The initial reaction of Bob Norris was to call this a hoax and that everyone attending the Cataldo event who expressed shock and dismay was lying. He offered a $10,000 reward for anyone with video proof of the alleged slander, even though it is broadly acknowledged that he disallows videography at his events.

From Tort Claim to Lawsuit

After the Tort process, a lawsuit was filed, and a hearing was finally held, after an out-of-county judge agreed to hear the case, which was dismissed, not on the merits, but on a bond technicality. Judge Lamont Berecz signed off on the Plaintiff’s right to resubmit the lawsuit with a corrected bond. He did not request a new tort claim, confirming the original tort filing was legally sufficient. His silence on the Tort Claims Act implies statutory compliance, not defect.

Strategic Delays in Filing Paperwork

Despite the judge’s directive, Sheriff Norris’s attorney failed to submit the dismissal paperwork, so the Plaintiff’s attorney prepared the document. This breach reflects strategic delay and disregard for judicial instruction.

Missed Deadlines by the Norris Legal Team

On August 7th, service of the re-filed lawsuit was accepted by the Norris legal team. They had 21 days to provide the court with an answer. They missed the deadline by 14 days, submitting the Answer on September 11. Is noncompliance with judicial procedure part of their practice?

Defense Strategy: Deny, Delay, Deflect

Now we recognize the Defense strategy. Deny, delay, and deflect. It does appear to be all they’ve got, and I don’t believe it’s enough. The Affirmative Defenses list starts with the protections of the Tort Claims Act, but the court has already moved past that. Next up is claiming the speech at Cataldo is protected by the 1st Amendment and/or qualified privileges. The 1st Amendment does provide for opinions, but it simply does not protect knowingly false statements made with malice. As far as qualified privileges, that privilege does not apply to a public official defaming a private citizen. When a law enforcement officer weaponizes his position to attack a citizen, the legal system must respond – not with deference but with scrutiny.

Contradictions in the Defense’s Position

The defense wraps up with some contradictions, asserting on one hand that the Plaintiff caused her own harm and that no injury occurred. They even invoke the “unclean hands” doctrine, accusing the Plaintiff of misconduct while offering no evidence. This is victim-blaming dressed in legalese.

Why This Case Matters

This is how you get your day in court: not through political theater, but through evidence, persistence, and the rule of law. Sheriff Norris’s legal strategy of deny, delay, and deflect may have worked in the court of public opinion. But in a court of law, facts matter, and the facts are stacking up.