Tennessee Man Cursed at Police in a Drive-Thru. He’s Now Suing the City Over the Arrest

A Tennessee man who records encounters with police spent years fighting a disorderly conduct charge that began with a roughly two-minute confrontation in a fast-food drive-thru.

Joshua Gibbons, who posts police encounters online under the name Big G Audits, had followed a Kingsport Police Department SUV after he believed its driver was speeding without emergency lights or sirens. He eventually approached Sgt. Craig Dunsworth while the officer waited at a Cook Out and confronted him about his driving.

Gibbons cursed at Dunsworth during the exchange. Police later reviewed Gibbons’ video and charged him with speeding, using a handheld cellphone while driving and disorderly conduct.

The traffic charges did not stick. The disorderly conduct case did — first before a judge and later before a jury — until the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals examined what actually happened in the drive-thru.

On June 2, a three-judge panel reversed Gibbons’ conviction and dismissed the charge, finding both a problem with the jury instructions and insufficient evidence to convict him.

The Drive-Thru

Embedded media follows; please allow a moment to load.

The confrontation happened Oct. 9, 2022.

According to the appellate opinion, Dunsworth testified that he had been heading to a crash to observe other officers’ work but arrived after the vehicles had been cleared. He stopped at Cook Out for food.

Gibbons approached the driver’s side of the police SUV with his phone camera raised. He asked for Dunsworth’s name and badge number and accused him of speeding.

Dunsworth denied speeding and declined to provide the requested information. Gibbons told him he was “full of s***.” As Gibbons walked away, he again criticized the officer’s driving and called him a “piece of s***.”

The encounter lasted less than two minutes.

Three prosecution witnesses later testified that it did not stop them from ordering food, receiving it or continuing with their plans. None got out of their vehicles.

A Video Review

The charges did not come from an arrest during the confrontation.

An affidavit quoted in the appellate opinion says Kingsport Police Detective Robert Mills was made aware of the Big G Audits video on Oct. 17, eight days after the drive-thru encounter.

Mills wrote that the footage showed Gibbons using a handheld phone while driving, traveling 53 mph in a 45 mph zone and later yelling obscenities at the officer in the drive-thru. He sought charges for speeding, prohibited cellphone use while driving and disorderly conduct.

An arrest warrant was issued that day. Gibbons was arrested the following morning.

The circumstances surrounding that arrest now sit at the center of a separate federal civil-rights case.

In a 2023 federal complaint, Gibbons alleged that eight armed Kingsport officers arrived at his mother’s home at about 5 a.m., entered with an arrest warrant and took him into custody.

Those details are allegations in the civil lawsuit, not findings in the later criminal appeal.

Another Video

Gibbons’ lawsuit alleges that the review of his footage was retaliation for his criticism of the department.

The complaint points to another video Gibbons posted on Oct. 15, 2022, showing Kingsport Police Officer Kin Ho displaying his middle finger toward him.

According to the filing, a member of the public complained to the department the following morning and included a link to Gibbons’ video. The complaint alleges the footage then circulated internally within the department.

Gibbons’ lawyers claim that within hours of senior department personnel learning about that video, Mills was directed to the earlier Dunsworth footage. Mills’ affidavit says he was made aware of the Dunsworth video at about 2 p.m. on Oct. 17.

The federal complaint characterizes what followed as retaliation for protected speech. The City of Kingsport and several current or former police personnel are defendants in the case.

That claim remains an allegation. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Gibbons, currently lists the federal case as active.

One Charge Left

The criminal case moved on a separate track.

Gibbons went before Sullivan County General Sessions Court in February 2023. The court found him not guilty of speeding and the cellphone offense but convicted him of disorderly conduct.

He was sentenced to 30 days, including 10 days to serve, then appealed for a new trial in Sullivan County Criminal Court.

That jury trial did not happen until September 2025.

The prosecution’s own witnesses presented a problem for the disorderly conduct charge. The appellate opinion says none testified that Gibbons prevented anyone from doing anything during the encounter.

Still, the jury convicted him.

The trial court later imposed a 30-day sentence to be served on supervised probation. Gibbons appealed again.

The Case Breaks

The Court of Criminal Appeals found two independent problems.

The arrest warrant accused Gibbons of disorderly conduct based on unreasonable noise that prevented others from carrying on lawful activities. At the prosecution’s request, however, the trial judge also instructed jurors on another form of disorderly conduct involving creation of a hazardous or physically offensive condition.

The appellate panel found that instruction improperly allowed the jury to convict Gibbons under a theory that had not been charged.

Even without that error, the conviction could not stand.

The judges found no evidence that Gibbons’ yelling prevented anyone from carrying on a lawful activity. Dunsworth obtained his food, the other customers obtained theirs, and the encounter ended quickly.

The court also noted that Gibbons did not threaten anyone or engage in fighting or violent behavior.

“Because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of disorderly conduct,” the panel concluded, it reversed the judgment and dismissed the case.

Gibbons’ federal lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee in October 2023, asks a jury to decide the separate question of whether Kingsport and the individual defendants violated his civil rights when police pursued the charges and arrested him.