KINGSPORT, TN — A Tennessee man who spent years fighting a disorderly conduct charge tied to a short exchange in a fast-food drive-thru has now won a reversal in state court. Joshua Gibbons, who posts police encounters online under the name Big G Audits, was accused after a confrontation with a Kingsport Police Department officer in 2022.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the charge on June 2, finding both a jury-instruction problem and a lack of proof that Gibbons’ words stopped anyone from carrying on lawful activity. The ruling ended the criminal case, but it did not resolve a separate federal lawsuit in which Gibbons says the arrest and prosecution were retaliation for his criticism of police.
How a fast-food stop turned into a criminal case
The confrontation began on Oct. 9, 2022, after Gibbons followed a Kingsport police SUV because he believed the driver was speeding without lights or sirens. He later approached Sgt. Craig Dunsworth at a Cook Out drive-thru and questioned his driving.
According to the appellate opinion, Dunsworth said he had been on his way to a crash scene to observe other officers, but arrived after the vehicles were cleared and then stopped for food. Gibbons walked up to the driver’s side with his phone camera raised, asked for the officer’s name and badge number, and accused him of speeding. The exchange lasted less than two minutes.
As Gibbons walked away, he called Dunsworth “full of s***” and later referred to him as a “piece of s***.”
Police review of the video led to traffic and disorderly conduct charges
Gibbons was not arrested during the drive-thru encounter itself. Instead, Kingsport Police Detective Robert Mills later reviewed a video from Gibbons’ account and prepared charges after becoming aware of it on Oct. 17, according to an affidavit quoted in the appellate opinion.
Mills wrote that the footage showed Gibbons using a handheld phone while driving, traveling 53 mph in a 45 mph zone, and then yelling obscenities at Dunsworth. An arrest warrant was issued that day, and Gibbons was taken into custody the next morning.
The traffic charges did not survive, but the disorderly conduct case did move forward through the courts before the appeals panel intervened.
Federal lawsuit says the arrest was retaliation for protected speech
Gibbons’ civil-rights case is proceeding separately in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee. In a 2023 complaint, he alleged that eight armed Kingsport officers came to his mother’s home around 5 a.m., entered with an arrest warrant, and arrested him.
Those allegations are part of the lawsuit and were not findings made in the criminal appeal. The complaint also says the police response was retaliation for his criticism of the department, which his lawyers argue is protected speech.
The City of Kingsport and several current or former police personnel are named as defendants. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Gibbons, lists the case as active.
Another video and an internal police review helped fuel the dispute
Gibbons’ lawsuit also points to a separate video he posted on Oct. 15, 2022, showing Kingsport Police Officer Kin Ho making an obscene gesture toward him. According to the complaint, a member of the public complained to the department the next day and sent a link to the video.
The filing says the footage then circulated inside the department and that, within hours of senior officials learning about it, Mills was directed to review the earlier Dunsworth encounter. Mills’ affidavit says he became aware of that video at about 2 p.m. on Oct. 17.
Gibbons’ lawyers say that sequence shows retaliation. The city and the officers have not had that claim resolved by the federal court.
Why the appellate judges threw out the conviction
Gibbons was first tried in Sullivan County General Sessions Court in February 2023. He was found not guilty of speeding and cellphone offenses but convicted of disorderly conduct and given a 30-day sentence, including 10 days to serve.
He then went to Sullivan County Criminal Court for a jury trial, which did not take place until September 2025. Prosecutors’ witnesses testified that the brief argument did not keep them from ordering food, receiving it, or continuing with their plans, and none got out of their vehicles.
The appellate court said that evidence fell short. It also found that the jury was improperly instructed on a form of disorderly conduct based on creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, even though the warrant charged only unreasonable noise that prevented lawful activity.
What the court said about the evidence in the drive-thru
The three-judge panel found two independent reasons to reverse the conviction. First, it said the extra jury instruction allowed jurors to convict Gibbons on a theory that had not been charged. Second, it said the state failed to prove the elements of the offense alleged in the warrant.
The judges noted that Dunsworth got his food, the other customers got theirs, and the episode ended quickly. They also emphasized that Gibbons did not threaten anyone and did not engage in fighting or violent conduct.
On that basis, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed the disorderly conduct case. His separate federal lawsuit, however, continues to ask whether Kingsport and the individual defendants violated his civil rights when police pursued charges and made the arrest.
From the Twin Cities to the border and back, Travel Your Way keeps Minnesota informed.
