Tennessee Man Sues Police Department After Pre-Dawn Raid For Criticizing Speeding Officer

A Tennessee man, arrested during a pre-dawn operation after filming and publicly criticizing a police officer, has filed a civil lawsuit against the Kingsport Police Department, its chief, and several officers. The complaint alleges the department infringed upon his First Amendment right to free expression.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) initiated the civil action in 2023 on behalf of Joshua Gibbons. The lawsuit has recently been made public after Gibbons successfully had his conviction overturned and the remaining charges dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

“They tried to intimidate me, but I’m not backing down,” Gibbons stated. “I can’t let this injustice stand, because my family doesn’t feel safe anymore. There’s no coming back from that raid on our home. They sent eight heavily armed officers to arrest me because I embarrassed them.”

The Initial Encounter and Departmental Response

The events leading to the lawsuit began in October 2022, when Gibbons recorded a Kingsport Police Department SUV moving at high speed during the night without its lights or sirens activated. The lawsuit contends this conduct violated both departmental policy and state law. Gibbons subsequently followed the vehicle and engaged the officer at a fast-food drive-thru, where he filmed a brief exchange in which he voiced his disapproval of the officer’s actions.

Gibbons, known for uploading videos of officers on duty to promote accountability, later posted a second video depicting an officer making an obscene gesture toward him.

According to FIRE, a citizen later lodged a complaint with the department regarding the officer’s behavior. In response, the department reportedly searched Gibbons’ YouTube channel, seeking content that could be used against him.

During their search, the department discovered Gibbons’ video of their own officer speeding. However, instead of initiating disciplinary action against the officer involved, officers were dispatched to arrest Gibbons.

“The First Amendment protects the right not only to criticize and film police, but also to post it online. The police department didn’t treat this as a crime until Joshua posted this online and embarrassed the department,” commented Steinbaugh, a representative for FIRE. Steinbaugh further characterized the case as “as lawless as it was hypocritical,” asserting that the department’s actions were designed “to make an example out of a critic.”

Arrest and Legal Proceedings

The lawsuit details that within two hours of becoming aware of Gibbons’ video of the speeding officer, an arrest warrant for Gibbons was secured. The warrant cited charges of speeding, using a cell phone while driving, and disorderly conduct. Notably, FIRE highlighted that the warrant was obtained from a court clerk rather than a judge.

Just before dawn the following morning, security and cell phone footage captured eight armed officers raiding Gibbons’ residence and arresting him in the presence of his elderly mother and his daughter. This dramatic arrest occurred a mere nine days after he had filmed and criticized the officer.

Gibbons then endured two separate trials over a period spanning nearly four years before a Tennessee appellate court recently dismissed the charges against him.

“That’s a long process that can take a mental toll on someone. I think that Joshua wants to send a message to this department. I think he wants to see some reforms to this department, and we’re happy to support him,” Steinbaugh added.

During the initial trial, a judge acquitted Gibbons of the speeding and cell phone charges but found him guilty of disorderly conduct, stating he was “offended by the way” Gibbons spoke to the officer. Gibbons appealed this decision to the county circuit court, where a jury again found him guilty of disorderly conduct.

Appellate Court Reverses Conviction

However, in June, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee unanimously reversed the jury’s verdict and dismissed the disorderly conduct charge. The appellate court concluded there was “no evidence” that Gibbons’ criticism of the officer “prevented any person from doing any lawful activity.”

The court explicitly stated that Gibbons “did not threaten anyone, did not engage in any violent behavior, and did not create a physically offensive or hazardous condition.” The ruling further noted that even “‘profane and insulting’ words alone will not rise to the level of a crime, particularly when uttered against the police, who ‘are trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen.’”

“If you are a law enforcement officer, you are required by your uniform and by the First Amendment to tolerate criticism. Some of that’s going to be fair criticism, some of it’s going to be unfair criticism. But you don’t get to go and arrest people for it. That’s the message we want to send to this department and to departments around the country,” Steinbaugh emphasized.