McNeff, BAM’s chief executive, said it by phone on March 10, and Reckless Ben was arrested for stalking 77 minutes later. Nine minutes before the call, Josh Johnson had given the officer what he said was the CEO’s definition of stalking, and the officer said he was “more than willing to screen” charges. The next afternoon an Orem officer told McNeff, with Johnson on the line, to have him call American Fork police “right this second,” and the 911 call that opened the raid case came three and a half minutes later. American Fork is being sued under the same statute, and the suit sues neither man.
PRIMARY SOURCEAmerican Fork police body cameras of March 10 and 11, 2026, and an Orem police body camera of March 11, with times from the cameras’ own clocks; American Fork’s dispatch and booking records; the October 14 complaint in Norcross v. City of American Fork.
CONFIRMEDThe order of events: the stalking definition at 15:52, the CEO’s call at 16:01 and the arrest at 17:18 MDT on March 10; “right this second” at 14:59 and the 911 call at 15:03 MDT on March 11.
INFERENCEThat this record fits the Tenth Circuit’s test for joint action, under which Ammon McNeff, Josh Johnson and, through McNeff’s own decisions, BAM could be sued under section 1983. No one has pleaded it, and no court has ruled.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 lets anyone whose constitutional rights are violated “under color of” state law sue the person responsible, and a private citizen can qualify. In Dennis v. Sparks (1980) the Supreme Court held it is enough that he “is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents,” because “Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting ‘under color’ of law.” The Tenth Circuit asks whether officers and private parties “acted in concert,” and “[o]ne way to prove willful joint action is to demonstrate that the public and private actors engaged in a conspiracy.”
The statute says “Every person,” and federal law defines a person to include “corporations, companies” (1 U.S.C. § 1). The Tenth Circuit holds companies to the rule it holds cities to: a company “cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory,” so it answers for its own policy or a decision of its final policymaker, not merely for employing someone (Dubbs v. Head Start, 2003).
In Janny v. Gamez (2021), a parole officer and a private shelter director told a parolee to follow the shelter’s religious program or go back to jail. The director expelled him for skipping church, and the next day the officer had him arrested. The court found the “meeting of the minds” in “the phone call between Mr. Carmack and Officer Gamez,” held that a jury could find the director a “willful participant” in joint action, and called it “a close question.”
The limit is Schaffer v. Salt Lake City (2016): “furnishing information to law enforcement officers, without more, does not constitute joint action.” It arises “only when an officer’s decision to initiate an arrest or a prosecution was not independent of a private party’s influence.”
For the private side, the record holds more than a report. On March 10 it has the outcome McNeff asked for, a definition of the crime that Johnson said came from him, an officer ready to screen it, and an arrest on that charge the same evening. On March 11 it has an Orem officer stating the same aim and setting the call to American Fork in motion. Johnson’s own account to American Fork’s officers at 15:38 matches the Orem camera.
For BAM the question is whether McNeff was making the company’s decisions. On March 11 he told Abrams the company had “distributed his photos to the various stores in the area” with word to “immediately call the police” if he showed up (August 8). A defense would ask whether his decisions answer to a board.
A defense would also answer from the same tapes. The March 10 officer said charges would go to the city’s prosecutors. Abrams recited the probable-cause rule and said American Fork’s officers would judge what they saw for themselves. Those officers made the March 11 arrests on what they found at the scene and under a judge’s warrant.
No one has put it to a court. The suit filed October 14 sues the city and 13 of its officers. It names Johnson 29 times, as the resident whose calls brought officers, and McNeff and BAM not once.
The fair reading, and its limit. Asking police to charge someone is lawful, telling a caller to phone the police instead of confronting anyone is ordinary advice, and the officers on these tapes say that probable cause and their own judgment decide arrests. Those readings do not explain an officer telling the side that wanted the arrest to “call 9-1-1 and have us show up so we can take him to jail,” or a stalking arrest that followed a definition Johnson said the CEO had sent him. No court has ruled on any of it.
Sources. American Fork police, case 26AF02033: Officer Pitt’s body camera, March 10, 2026, file 1542, at 15:51 to 16:02 MDT (times from the camera’s clock); another officer’s camera, file 1718, at 17:18; the booking record. Case 26AF02066: the dispatch record (call received 15:03:20); Lt. Adamson’s and Officer Richardson’s cameras at about 15:38, clip 1508, which the department withheld from its release (the census). Orem police, case 26OR04733: Officer Abrams’s body camera, March 11, files 1420 and 1455. Norcross v. City of American Fork, No. 2:26-cv-01008 (D. Utah), complaint of October 14, 2026, paragraph 107 (the suit). 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 1 U.S.C. § 1. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 to 28 (1980); Janny v. Gamez, 8 F.4th 883 (10th Cir. 2021); Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016); Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003). Each quotation in the timelines opens its moment on the multiviewer.