Tennessee police sued for raiding critic's home after speeding complaint

Joshua Gibbons was doing what he had made a habit of doing: filming police officers on duty and posting the footage online. It was October 2022 in Kingsport, Tennessee, and he had just recorded a police SUV speeding through the night without its lights or sirens activated—conduct that violated both department policy and state law, according to the lawsuit that would follow. When Gibbons caught up with the officer at a fast food drive-thru, he approached and briefly criticized what he had witnessed. The officer, for his part, did nothing. He ignored Gibbons, finished his order, and left. No arrest was made. No crime was seen.

But Gibbons did what he always did with such footage: he edited it, uploaded it to YouTube, and made it public. He also posted a second video showing another officer giving him the middle finger. These were the acts of someone trying to hold police accountable through the only tool available to an ordinary citizen—documentation and exposure. What happened next would consume nearly four years of his life and land his family in a state of fear.

Within two hours of the police department becoming aware of Gibbons' video of the speeding officer, an arrest warrant had been obtained. The warrant charged him with speeding, using a cell phone while driving, and disorderly conduct. Notably, the warrant was issued by a court clerk rather than a judge. The next morning, just before dawn, eight armed officers arrived at Gibbons' house. Security footage and cell phone video captured the raid. His elderly mother and his daughter were present when the officers took him into custody. Nine days had passed since he filmed and criticized the speeding officer.

Gibbons faced two trials over the following years. In the first, a judge acquitted him of the speeding and cell phone charges but convicted him of disorderly conduct, stating he was offended by the way Gibbons had spoken to the officer. Gibbons appealed to the county circuit court, where a jury again found him guilty of disorderly conduct. The legal machinery had turned, and it seemed to be grinding toward a conviction that would stick.

Then, in June, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed the verdict and dismissed the disorderly conduct charge entirely. The court found there was no evidence that Gibbons' criticism had prevented anyone from conducting lawful activities. He had not threatened anyone, had not engaged in violence, and had not created any physically offensive or hazardous condition. The court went further, noting that even profane and insulting words alone do not rise to the level of a crime, particularly when directed at police officers, who are trained to exercise greater restraint than ordinary citizens.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) had filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Kingsport, its police chief, and its officers in 2023, alleging a violation of Gibbons' First Amendment right to free expression. Gibbons made the complaint public only after his conviction was overturned and the remaining charges dismissed. In a statement, he said the raid had left his family feeling unsafe. "They tried to intimidate me, but I'm not backing down," he said. "There's no coming back from that raid on our home. They sent eight heavily armed officers to arrest me because I embarrassed them."

FIRE's Senior Attorney Adam Steinbaugh characterized the department's actions as both lawless and hypocritical. The department had not treated Gibbons' conduct as a crime until after he posted the video online and embarrassed the department. "The First Amendment protects the right not only to criticize and film police, but also to post it online," Steinbaugh told Fox News Digital. He added that the case was designed to make an example out of a critic. The broader message, he said, was clear: law enforcement officers are required by their uniform and by the First Amendment to tolerate criticism, whether fair or unfair. They do not have the right to arrest people for it.

Kingsport Police did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit remains pending, and Gibbons' case now stands as a test of whether police departments can use the machinery of arrest and prosecution to silence those who film and criticize their conduct.