Bianco moves to strike slander case from “would-be Trump assassin”

Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco argues his deputies had reasonable cause to arrest Vem Miller, and that his later statements calling Miller a “would-be Trump assassin” are protected and privileged under California law.

Riverside sheriff’s deputies arrested Miller when he attempted to attend the Oct. 12 Trump rally in Coachella. At the entrance, Miller says he proactively told the deputies he had a shotgun and a handgun in his car—a disclosure he regularly gave to law enforcement in Nevada. Following the arrest, Bianco held a press conference in which he said he stopped an assassination attempt. 

“No matter what, it’s all going to be speculation about what his intentions were getting there. If you’re asking me right now—I probably did have deputies that prevented the assassination attempt,” Bianco said. 

He later texted The Epoch Times, “We arrested a man trying to get in the perimeter with two firearms who ended up saying he was going to kill the president.”

Miller’s March 10 complaint accused Bianco of using the arrest to jumpstart his gubernatorial campaign.

Bianco’s motion to dismiss says that Miller granted authority to arrest him when he said he had a loaded handgun and a large-capacity magazine in violation of Penal Code Sections 25850(a) ( and 32310. He was cited with both.

Bianco’s motion argues that his statements were made in connection with an issue of public interest: President Donald Trump and two failed assassination attempts. Statements made on an issue of public interest are protected under California’s anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law. 

The very fact that his statements were made to the media proves that the issue was on a topic of great public interest, Bianco’s motion continued.

Even if the anti-SLAPP argument is ignored, the motion says that he was protected by the absolute privilege for statements made in the proper charge of an official duty.

“Press releases, press conferences and other public statements by such officials are covered by the ‘official duty’ privilege,” the motion says, quoting the 2008 case Maranatha v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The motion continues to say that his statements “made in his official capacity as the sheriff and in relation to the arrest and citation of Plaintiff for violation of California Penal Code,” and are relevant to the police investigation into Miller, and as such are protected statements under California’s litigation privilege. 

Bianco further argued his statements were a personal and non-factual opinion—and that he continually said the investigation was ongoing.

“Viewing the challenged statements in the full context of the press conference and interview videos, no reasonable person would interpret Sheriff Bianco’s statements to say that Plaintiff in fact wanted to kill the President. Instead, all of the videos reveal that Sheriff Bianco was merely expressing his personal opinion and belief based on the available information and disclosed all of the facts underlying his opinion,” his motion wrote.

Read next: Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against the owner of 10,000 residential units in the Inland Empire, alleging discrimination, unhealthy living conditions and the false waiver of tenants' right. Read here.

Or return to the edition guide.