St. Paul police defend Chris Lollie arrest; lawyers question aggressive use of force

ChrisLollie1.jpg
Chris Lollie photo via Facebook
:::: UPDATE :::: First National Bank Building asked folks to "enjoy seat" where Chris Lollie sat before arrest

In the wake of the stir caused by the hard-to-watch footage of Chris Lollie's arrest in the First National Bank Building skyway while he waited to pick up his kids from school, the St. Paul Police Department took to Facebook in an attempt to justify officers' conduct.

Lollie, however, tells us the PD's version of events isn't accurate, and lawyers we spoke with questioned why cops would use a taser on a man alleged to have committed such minor offenses.

See also:
St. Paul PD defends killing dogs while executing search warrant that didn't lead to arrest

First, here's the entirety of the statement the St. Paul PD posted to Facebook yesterday:
Thank you for the discussion regarding the video that was has been circulated from a January 31, 2014 arrest.

As is often the case, the video does not show the totality of the circumstances.

Our officers were called by private security guards on a man who was trespassing in a private area. The guards reported that the man had on repeated occasions refused to leave a private "employees only" area in the First National Bank Building.

With no information on who the man was, what he might be doing or why he refused to leave the area, responding Saint Paul police officers tried to talk to him, asking him who he was. He refused to tell them or cooperate.

Our officers are called upon and required to respond to calls for assistance and to investigate the calls. At one point, the officers believed he might either run or fight with them. It was then that officers took steps to take him into custody. He pulled away and resisted officers' lawful orders. They then used the force necessary to safely take him into custody.

The man was charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process. Those charges were dismissed in July.

We have had a discussion with the man in the video and he was given information on how to file a formal complaint if that was his desire. At this time, no formal complaint has been filed.

We hope this helps to clear up some of the information our communities have been seeking.
We spoke to Lollie last night and asked him about the trespassing allegation.

"It's all false," he says. "They lied."

Lollie says he was sitting in a chair in the skyway's hallway when a security guard approached him, told him he was in a private area, and threatened to call police if he didn't leave. But Lollie didn't see any signs specifying that the area was employees-only or private in any other way, so he decided to hold tight, confident police would have his back if they showed up.

Officers showed up shortly thereafter, and Lollie says he started filming his now-infamous video after the first cop on the scene grabbed him.

As we told you about yesterday, Lollie was eventually charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the legal process. Law enforcement kept his phone until the charges were dropped in July, meaning Lollie wasn't able to upload his footage to YouTube until quite recently.

Asked why the charges were dropped, Lollie says one of his daughter's teachers saw the entire incident and corroborated his version of events. Lollie says another woman who works near the First National Bank Building told investigators she would often sit and have lunch in the stretch of skyway where Lollie was arrested and had never been badgered by security guards or police.

With those two witness statements working in Lollie's favor, prosecutors decided to drop the charges, and Lollie was finally reunited with his phone.

We spoke with Robert Bennett, arguably the Twin Cities' foremost police misconduct attorney, and asked him what he makes of the footage.

(For more, click to page two.)



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
319 comments
LIZE
LIZE

Thanks i like your blog very much, i come back most days to find new posts like this! Good effort. I learn it.

m use home security service from http://www.lloydsecurity.com.they are best

didarulislam234
didarulislam234

He couldn't leave the skyway without his kids. That's what he was trying to explain to the police. One of the witnesses said she would sit in the same area he was waiting in and eat her lunch there. Why was it ok for her? She backed up his story along with his kid's teacher. That's why the charges were dropped. He did not break any laws. He did not deserve to be harassed, arrested, or tased. He had every right to be there. Wait until something like this happens to you, then maybe you'll start to question authority.

http://www.bailbondinlongbeach.com

keithfail
keithfail

The reason that @gumpsdanielson Gumps doesn't understand why this guy would not just cooperate and explain to the cops what he was up to, which sounds like a reasonable request, is that white people don't have the same experience of day to day reality in this country as black people do.  Gumps, if you had been continually harassed by everyone from cops to clerks to security guards all your life you would be likely to be a bit belligerent as well. 

This is what most white people don't understand.  It is called white privilege and it is so out of our normal awareness that we can't see how it is for people of color because their lives and the way that they are treated on average is so different than the way we are treated.  So we say, surely we have gotten beyond this race issue.  But if you are a person of color you know that race is a daily problem that just doesn't go away simply because we wish it would or even because we have laws that are supposed to assure equality. 

Race is not going to quit being an issue until white people and people of color can see that they are the same to the point of marrying and no body thinking any thing of it. 


With every funeral, the world gets a little bit better. 

AmyAlkon
AmyAlkon

If the area was not marked as employees only, it was entirely reasonable for the guy to assume that someone was asking him to leave for spurious reasons (like that he's a black guy or a dreadlocked black guy). 


None of us like to be controlled by others and I celebrate people (and we all should) who non-violently protest thuggery and abuse -- like Chris Lollie, by holding his ground. 


The thugs -- in cop uniforms -- decided to abuse their power and tase him and throw him in a cage. This needs to stop and the officers here need to be charged and dealt with under the law, not coddled and protected by the police department.

tbloom50
tbloom50

It seems that the male officer thought he had to protect the female officer and show how macho he was.  But it also looks like St. Paul needs to come up with a lot of money.  Especially since the charges cannot be substantiated, and because others who use the same seating were not challenged.  Seems like the bank also has a problem and will be sued in conjunction with the city and police.

mdh2133
mdh2133

Chris Lollie, if you're reading this, I'm a lawyer who doesn't work for profit and I'm interested in making sure you're getting sound legal advice.  If you want a first second or third (etc.) opinion, email stpaulskywaysarepublic@gmail.com.  Be well. 

digital.poltergeist
digital.poltergeist

@c7kec You used to work there? Good. You may be a witness to unlawful activity on the part of the owners, if that indeed was the policy as you say. It appears business owners are REQUIRED BY LAW to provide a public easement over skyways as a condition of development. That this was indeed a skyway hallway is not in dispute by any involved party.


And the law further stipulates that anything (fixtures, furniture, etc) placed in that public skyway is apart of the public domain. I'll leave these two links here for your perusal: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/commentskyway.jpg

http://stpaul.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=693&meta_id=34152


Direct quote from "Section 140.01 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code: Pedestrian skyway system means any system of providing for pedestrian traffic circulation, mechanical or otherwise elevated above ground, within and without the public rights-of-way, and THROUGH OR ABOVE PRIVATE PROPERTY and buildings, and includes overpasses, bridges, passageways, walkways, concourses, HALLWAYS, corridors, arcades, courts, plazas, malls, elevators, escalators, heated canopies and access AND ALL FIXTURES, FURNITURE, signs, equipment, facilities, services and appurtenances."


Please do your civic duty and contact this man's lawyer so you can offer your testimony on this unlawful activity you mention of business owners restricting public use of public property. 

bsmall66.bs
bsmall66.bs

@c7kec Then why were the two women that came forward on his behalf not harassed by security or the Police for doing the exact same thing????Because evidently a black man sitting there is somehow suspicious,and the two white ladies,not so much.You can't be this blind,it was obvious,they were racist.if he committed no crime,he didn't have to give his name,but the police didn't care about that.Racism the bastard child of slavery alive and well.@c7kec 

iceman4god
iceman4god

@c7kec "But the mental capacity of many officers today is questionable." With no signs designating the area as "private" with eyewitness collaborating Lollie's statements that it is a public area, you sir are an an example of that statement. Additionally in another story elsewhere IQ testing for security and police work eliminates those with higher IQ's with the reasoning that those with higher IQ's would become bored with the job and retention would be a problem. For Obvious reasons then the charges are dropped and with a good lawyer that security firm and PD will be making a hefty contribution to his kids scholarship fund.

Irma_Gerd
Irma_Gerd

@c7kec 

Then why is there a public post on the First National Bank Building's Facebook page inviting people to take a break there?

ceanf9
ceanf9

@c7kec lick those boots buddy. lick hard enough and they might let you join their fraternity one day. until then, unarmed cop caller it is!

sukibarnstorm
sukibarnstorm

@c7kec The problem here is not whether the space is private or public.  If Mr. Lollie was white the security guard would have just told him that this was not a public space and he should move on.  But they called the police and then asked for his ID.  There was no need for that and it just escalated from there.  We need to have police that are color blind and treat all people the same.

atrupar
atrupar moderator

@c7kec Thanks for sharing this. Would you be up for talking with me about your experience working as a security guard? Drop me a line at atrupar@gmail.com if so!

2bitbob
2bitbob

@keithfail - Are you referring to the fact blacks have been enslaved and racially abused, when in america or are you referring to other races that have had this done to them, who do not behave like this?  If I recall, you don't see your fellow masters of "en-slavering" people in Africa acting like this either, and they ran one of the biggest slave trades ever.


The fact is, when a police office asks you what you are doing, you reply our of interest for your own community.  You don;t have to bow down to oppression, you act responsible and humble.


This guy could have said, sorry I am waiting for my four kids to get out of school.  Now had the police taken the same course of action then, he would get the sympathy of everyone on this planet.  But instead, he used a weak excuse, the same excuse most of his Hip Hop wannabes use for gang violence.


2bitbob
2bitbob

@AmyAlkon - It's not control until you relinquish the mental capacity to understand people's well being.  They were not asking for his credit card or his wannabe fake hip hop lyrics.  They were just making sure we are all safe.

2bitbob
2bitbob

@mdh2133 - why not represent all those who are affected by gang violence.. sounds like a better service to the community.

c7kec
c7kec

@digital.poltergeist - What I would like to understand is where the distinction lies between what a property owner can enforce on their own property vs. what they must allow.  It's called "public easement" - define what easement means, and how that is to be interpreted by building owners please.  Is there discretion, and if so who gets to be discretionary, the city or the building owner?    

c7kec
c7kec

@bsmall66.bs I'm not sure why, but from my understanding security had a shot history of Lollie doing this before and had spoken to him about it.  Like every bad decision a person makes in life there are negative consequences to follow.  Personally I think the police handled him too strongly and a simple warning would have been sufficient. 

c7kec
c7kec

@iceman4god Where's that story that you read "elsewhere?"  I'd really like see what kind of evidence is out there to "prove" that. You sound like a whackjob conspiracy theorist.    

c7kec
c7kec

@iceman4god Eyewitnesses account for no signs?  I got news for you, most private places don't put up signs saying "private area".  It makes no difference however.  The failure of having an apparent mental capacity is on you.

c7kec
c7kec

@Irma_Gerd  You raise a good point, and it's one of the policies they have there that is confusing.  When I worked there I was trained in by security staff; who were instructed by bldg management; whom had declared that area reserved for commuters doing business within the FNBB.  It wasn't terribly hard to distinguish between who was taking advantage of the gesture vs. people actually working and taking a break as you say.  


I'm not saying the security did the right thing in this case, I wasn't there, but they certainly did have the right to contact the police to bring a resolution to the problem if they felt they weren't getting through.  

c7kec
c7kec

@sukibarnstorm @c7kec You're wrong and you don't know the security there - half of which are minority themselves, so quit painting everyone with a broad brush and hating.  When I was working I was color blind - if you weren't allowed to be in a certain area it was never personal nor prejudicial based on someone's race, just management policy, and few people didn't understand. 


Across the street from where this happens is one of the most crime-ridden bus stops in St. Paul.  If security allowed people to seat themselves in that area it would have been an attraction for loitering and vagrancy in no time flat, and security would have lost their job. Mr. Lollie was warned, didn't comply and answered to the authorities for it.  I have no comment on how the authorities handled it from that point, but I know from having worked there security did a sufficient job and were plenty fair to Lollie.

Icehot
Icehot

@2bitbob @keithfail DUDE, you clearly did not watch the video. He told the female police officer that he had just gotten off work. He sat down for 2 minutes to kill a little time before he had to pick his children up from school. The woman police officer repeadly asked him "What's the problem." He answered again and again and again "There is no problem, I am just picking up my kids from school." However, she demanded to see his ID. 


But, the real problem is you this. Keithfail mad a very valid point. Racisim and racial profiling are rampant in this country. A few examples of the past few years, NYPD's stop and frisk laws that was forced by the courts to be amended because of the percentage of stops of black people vs other races was astronomical. How about the the Newark police department for clearly violating citizens rights and even more so, 85% of the illegal traffic stops were cars with black drivers, in  town where only a 54% of the population are black. 


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/after-3-year-probe-feds-monitor-newark-police


So, when I say the problem is you, what I mean is you, the racist people.


How about a black man being arrested and charged for OUI even though he blew a .000% BAC and a trained sobriety test officer stated he was no under the influence, and his blood work came back with no drugs present. 


http://gawker.com/man-with-bac-of-0-00-arrested-and-charged-with-dui-512225776


The fact is, if you are white in a white suburban area you don't see it. But, go to a black neighborhood and just watch what the police do. @keithfail is right. Racisim is just as prevelant and as relevant as it was in the 70's and 80's, the only difference is people keep it more silent because they know if they get caught that can hurt there career or personal life


bsmall66.bs
bsmall66.bs

You sir are so off base its not even worth trying to bring you back home.

sbreezy
sbreezy

@2bitbob @keithfail He clearly stated that he was waiting on his children and not doing anything illegal or aggressive.  His tone was moderated and he didn't get violent.  If you watch the video, he did exactly what you are suggesting he should do but didn't get the results that you would get, he got the results that a person of color dealing with the law would get.  

isadorehannon
isadorehannon

@2bitbob @AmyAlkon whats up with the reference to hip hop as an answer? That i a racial undertone you are taking right now. Thats part of the problem. Unless you can walk in a mans shoes you really dont have an idea.

AmyAlkon
AmyAlkon

@2bitbob @AmyAlkon You really don't get it, 2bitbob -- about our civil liberties. By violating them -- by officers of the law violating them -- we are enormously unsafe. 


As Conor Friedersdorf wrote at The Atlantic: 


Lollie is also absolutely correct that no law required him to show an ID to police officers. As Flex Your Rights explains, "Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in illegal activity," and while 24 states have passed "stop and identify" statutes "requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place," Minnesota isn't one of those states.


Also, as I wrote in my own blog comments on this story: Anyone can accuse you of anything. Cops should not be cops if they cannot apply some judiciousness and understand that people will make accusations and call for their assistance -- and really, 911 because a guy is sitting on a bench -- and that those accusations might not be about an actual crime being committed.

digital.poltergeist
digital.poltergeist

@c7kec 

Easement area shall mean an area or areas of the pedestrian skyway system or of a

17 pedestrian mall which is subject to an easement granted by a private property owner to the city

18 for the benefit of the public for pedestrian ingress, passage and egress.

19

20 Pedestrian mall shall mean any indoor enclosed public mall, arcade, courtyard, galleria,

21 gallery, piazza, square or other type of indoor public pedestrian way or open space.

22

23 Pedestrian skyway system means any system of providing for pedestrian traffic

24 circulation, mechanical or otherwise elevated above ground, within and without the public

25 rights-of-way, and through or above private property and buildings, and includes overpasses,

26 bridges, passageways, walkways, concourses, hallways, corridors, arcades, courts, plazas, malls,

27 elevators, escalators, heated canopies and access and all fixtures, furniture, signs, equipment,

28 facilities, services and appurtenances. The term shall include systems or portions of systems

29 which are built in the future. For purposes of this chapter, a pedestrian skyway system shall

30 include stairways and escalators and tunnels leading from or into the skyway system from

31 private buildings and areas under stairs and escalators leading to and connecting concourse

32 corridors, in addition to stairs and escalators connecting the concourse corridors to public streets

33 or other public property.

dbs1970
dbs1970

@c7kec @bsmall66.bs This just blows my mind.  The guy is minding his own business waiting for his kids.  Egad...

iceman4god
iceman4god

c7kec That would be you, since you failed to find it on the web, you need to expand your skill sets beyond "observe and report".

hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @Irma_Gerd  There is no legal basis for distinguishing between a commuter and a non-commuter using the space.  It's either Public space or it's private space, there is no other option.  You can have private space that you invite customers to use and it still be private, but once it is public, you cannot do what they did.  It's not complicated.

hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @sukibarnstorm  Except, of course, white people sit there all the time (See the witness statements) and there is no signage indicating it is a private, non-public space (a legal requirement).  While they might have a problem with vagrancy, it's not a license to tase an innocent man.

gonridnu
gonridnu

@c7kec @sukibarnstorm apparently you are wrong and don't know the security there mr "I used to be a security guard" ... CNN is reporting the police have confirmed it was indeed a public area.


So the question is why would an ex security guard (laughs out loud a little) think he knows what is and isn't a private area.  


A.   Because he was told it was so.  He then took those words o heart without a challenge.  And then he went on the internet and parroted those words without thinking and checking.  And then he gave us a living example of how this all came to pass.  


Th ignorant were given a badge, a stick, and a belief...



c7kec
c7kec

@digital.poltergeist Thanks for clarification but I didn't communicate that question well enough.  I understand what easement means, but where does the line get drawn - within a privately owned building - as to what the difference between using the public easement and abusing the public easement on private property?  


Who defines what abuse means, the city or the property owner?  

c7kec
c7kec

@iceman4god You're truly a douche bag with a low IQ.  Find the report,copy it, paste it on here - the burden of proof is on you moron as you are the one who claims it exists.  

c7kec
c7kec

@hey_ross The FNBB pays taxes on that space, maintain it, clean it, wax and mop the floors around it, own the furniture etc..., and they own the building it exists in.  


As such they are entitled to enforce rules and policies within that space.  It may be public, but the space is public "easement", and who defines whether the space is being used as easement or not is really the question.


So tell me: who?

c7kec
c7kec

@gonridnu @c7kec @sukibarnstorm You want to insult me for what I did for a living then fine.  Meet me somewhere and do it to my face.  I'm pretty sure that armchair bravado you exude dissolves the moment we come face to face (laughs out loud, a little), ass.  


As for CNN - they don't own the property itself, and if the nature of that property is in dispute let a court of law discern the outcome, but the private nature of that property - per building management - included that specific area.  Security was doing what it was told to do.  

hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @hey_ross  actually, that is incorrect. Public easement space may be improved, but access to it is a public right.

Icehot
Icehot

@c7kec @digital.poltergeist Dude, when do you just admit your thought of thinking is flawed?

1. Other people have said they do the same thing over and over again, the Bank does not have the right to allow a white woman to sit there every day on lunch but deny a black man that same right. This would be a clear trend of racial discrimination.


2. They proved to you police forces were allowed to refuse the hire of a man with a higher IQ. You scream "That was one person and one lower court." However, that doesn't matter! THEY WERE STILL ALLOWED TO DO IT.


3. There are no signs or anything in the area that states it is a private place. If in fact this is a private place, and there had been run ins with Lollie before, don't you think it would have a been a smart idea for the bank to put up a sign stating this is a private area?


4. He showed you the statute on what a public easement is and the laws surrounding it. Your defense have him explain how a business owner would "interpret the law." How could be possibly state that?


5. Even if there is a question on the public vs private rights here, that is not for the police to enforce but more of a civil matter.


6. This man had vacated the "sitting area." He sounded very calm and collected, but was extending he had commited no crime as he had not. 


7. Your point about there being the worst bus stop right outside is not a legal argument but an emotional one. That has no influence on this. Because clearly they are not having issues with drugs in that seating area, and if they are or were. WHY NOT PUT UP A SIGN!?


8. Your defense is that the bank can have the right to limit access and not allow people to "abuse the area." However, what you really are looking for is for the bank to be allowed to pick and choose who they allow to use the area and who they do not. Again, this would be discrimination and against the law. 


9. Now, I as well will not respond again for a few reasons. It is clear that you are a person who enjoys trying to be right and can't ever lose. As well as when you have lost you resort to personal attacks and direct insults rather than staying on topic and debating your case. You take someones not responding to an online article as them being proved wrong and you getting some sort of victory. When in fact they probably have not even bothered to come back and waste any more time because they have other things to do.

c7kec
c7kec

@iceman4god I'm overwhelmingly impressed by the arguments made in the article (well, er not really).  One lower court in New York makes a ruling and you assume that's a national standardized practice.  Laughable.  



c7kec
c7kec

@hey_ross I'm not aware that Lollie was ever denied the access to it.  I believe he was asked not to abuse it as he allegedly had in the past.  My understanding from when I worked there; which was for a short time; was that the building reserved the right to trespass violators of the policies within.  


It's a question of how the law is interpreted.  Across the street from where Lollie sat is the #1 worst bus stop in all of St. Paul.  Multiple shootings, drug dealing, fights etc. require the Police Department to maintain a presence there 16 hours a day.  


If public easement is "so accessible" there would be people from that bus stop parking themselves in the area Lollie sat all day long and being a general nuisance.  


At some point the FNBB has a right to enforce a policy of their own.  Do you agree?

c7kec
c7kec

@Icehot  My thinking is not flawed, I am the only person on this damn thread with the experience of having worked IN the FNBB as security.  I think that gives me more of an authoritative base to argue their policies from, and also insight into why the incident took place and how it could have been avoided on both ends. I’ll respond to each of your ennumerated points. 

1.It’s not racial discrimination if you can’t prove it is through the actions of the security there.  There’s all kinds of cases when white people have been ask to move on from the seating area, so don’t play the race card.

2.I stand by my point, despite what “they” said.  Most departments don’t test IQ’s as part of a hiring procedure.  I went to school to become a police officer, and know tons of well educated officers, even some with PHd’s, so it’s a pointless argument meant to taper away from the losing argument that person was making and certainly can’t be proven in the case of the officers who made the arrest of Lollie.  If I'm wrong I'll accept documentation to show that this is the SPPD standard hiring policy.  

3.I agree with you – signs would be the smart idea, but the absence of them doesn’t preclude them any right to enforce their polices.

4.The term easement is vague and allows for interpretation, that’s why.  Again, just because something is labeled easement doesn’t mean it gets to have rules behind its usage.

5.I agree – I don’t think the police handled it well either.  Lollie being arrested was going too far.

6.Again, I agree and it was stupid how it escalated. 

7.My point is illustrative on how the building CANNOT simply allow the easement to be interpreted by the public.

8.I got news for you, discrimination itself isn’t illegal.  The whole point of having security at the bank or anywhere is to discriminate against the abuse of property or people.  It’s a moot point you make and picking and choosing isn’t illegal so long as it is just. 

9.You won’t respond because I resort to personal attacks, and then make a personal attack?  Makes sense, hypocrite.  Read carefully what I have said.  I don’t take shit talk from people, not in person or online, so my responses were tailored in replies to personal attacks against me that were lobbed over first.  People not responding to my questions only leaves me with the impression they have nothing to defend.  It’s that simple.  Good day.

iceman4god
iceman4god

@c7kec, Three important things to note you moron;

1. That you are the moron. 

2. That the practice of hiring morons has become the norm and, 

3. That court allowed it.


Three strikes your out.


It is you that is truly laughable, thanks for the entertainment. 


I won't be responding to any further moronic dribble from you.


Good Luck!

hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @hey_ross  Well, it's really not a matter of opinion, but of the law.  You cannot, in a public space, prevent someone from being there until they commit a nuisance crime, which in this case, he wasn't doing.  It's based on the notion of due process - you cannot prohibit free assembly and access to public spaces until the person does something that violates the law.


If FNBB wants to keep people out they deem undesirable, they need to abandon the walkway and put an access door in at the public/private transition.  Once the access is about private space and not the public easement adjacent to their space, they are fine to do what they want.

c7kec
c7kec

@iceman4god Ok, now you went from straight moron, to just a pure pussy.  


Oh, and make sure you remember to put fries in my order next time.


Douche.  



c7kec
c7kec

@hey_ross The law itself is an opinion based on facts.  Public easement isn't a cart blanche to stay there for an unreasonable amount of time, nor be able to continually violate policy.  I'm not sure what took place before hand with Lollie, but it sounds like he may have been warned before, so this incident doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.  


I guess the court will work it out.  I don't think the security there was necessarily in the wrong, or in the right, I think everything is too gray at the moment to determine anything.  



hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @iceman4god  Both of your credibility went flying out the window with ad hominem attacks that add nothing to the discussion. 

hey_ross
hey_ross

@c7kec @hey_ross  I don't think there is any issue with the security guard calling cops to check out the complaint.  The issue is completely with the over reaction and escalation of violence that came from the officers, rather than de-escalation.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...