Table of Contents
A routine visit to document conditions at the Tulsa County Library turned into an arrest when security detained journalist Dan from Auditing Erie County for filming in the public building. The incident escalated quickly as library staff insisted filming customers violated their privacy rights, leading to an unprecedented detention by private security.
The Initial Confrontation
Library employee Rebecca confronted Dan about filming, claiming customers had "a right to privacy" in the public space. When Dan questioned this assertion and asked for the legal precedent, tensions escalated. Security personnel intervened, demanding Dan leave the building five times before placing him in handcuffs for what they termed "criminal activity."
The exchange grew heated as Dan's colleague challenged the detention, pointing out the absurdity of arresting someone for documenting activities in a government building. Security remained unmoved, with one officer smugly defending the arrest while refusing to articulate what crime had been committed.
When Private Security Overreaches
The most striking aspect of the incident was library security's apparent belief they had arrest powers. Armed with handcuffs, these private guards detained Dan in the building's lower level while insisting their actions were legal. They cited library policy as justification, seemingly unaware that internal policies cannot override constitutional rights in public spaces.
One security guard even brandished a pocket knife Dan was carrying as somehow relevant to the detention, highlighting the desperate search for justification after the fact. The entire episode was livestreamed, capturing the guards' confusion about their actual authority.
Police Arrive to an Awkward Scene
When Tulsa Police arrived, the situation became even more revealing. Officer Natividad activated his body camera and went downstairs to assess what security had done. Rather than supporting the detention, police appeared to recognize the problematic nature of the arrest.
The library staff attempted to hand officers their written policy, as if internal rules could legitimize what appeared to be an unlawful detention. The disconnect between security's confidence and the legal reality became increasingly apparent as trained law enforcement evaluated the situation.
The Aftermath That Raises More Questions
Dan was eventually released, but not before being issued what staff described as a trespass notice. The legal validity of such a notice for constitutionally protected activity remains questionable. Police indicated they would not generate a full report, creating only an incident number for the body camera footage.
Most troubling was security's apparent routine comfort with using handcuffs and detention powers. The ease with which they escalated to physical restraint suggests this may not be an isolated incident at the facility.
What the Video Reveals About Government Accountability
The full livestream captures every moment of this constitutional clash, from the initial confrontation to Dan's eventual release, raising serious questions about the boundaries of security authority in public buildings.
