The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Garrett Jennings Van Net for obstructing a police officer during a traffic stop. The court ruled that while Van Net was exercising his First Amendment rights by filming the stop, he failed to comply with lawful police commands. This ruling affects individuals who film police activities, clarifying the limits of First Amendment protections in such situations.
The case, People of Michigan v. Garrett Jennings Van Net, was decided on June 18, 2026, under docket number 374944. The court's decision emphasizes the balance between the right to free speech and the need for law enforcement to safely perform their duties.
Background
Garrett Jennings Van Net is a self-proclaimed “First Amendment Auditor,” known for filming interactions between police and the public. The incident that led to his arrest occurred on a November evening in 2022 when Michigan State Police Troopers Cole Tardiff and Gavin LaMarche stopped a truck with a defective headlight on a highway between Gladstone and Escanaba.
During the traffic stop, Van Net drove by and decided to film the encounter. Despite being instructed by Trooper Tardiff to maintain a safe distance, Van Net repeatedly ignored commands to step back, ultimately leading to his arrest for obstructing a police officer under Michigan law. A jury found him guilty, and he subsequently appealed the conviction, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights.
The Ruling
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, stating, “The bounds of the First Amendment are not limitless. Neither are the powers of law enforcement when conducting official duties.” The court concluded that Van Net's actions interfered with the officers' ability to safely conduct the traffic stop.
The ruling highlighted that while citizens have the right to film police officers performing their duties, that right does not grant them the freedom to ignore lawful commands aimed at ensuring safety. The judges involved in the decision were Christopher M. Trebilcock, Mark T. Boonstra, and Anica Letica.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the legal boundaries for individuals who film police encounters, emphasizing that First Amendment rights are not absolute. It establishes that while filming police is protected, individuals must comply with reasonable commands from law enforcement to ensure safety during such interactions. This case may influence how future cases regarding the filming of police activities are approached, particularly concerning the balance between free speech and public safety.
Moreover, the ruling reinforces the legal principle that obstruction of police duties can occur not just through physical interference but also through non-compliance with lawful commands. This sets a precedent for similar cases where individuals assert their rights while potentially interfering with law enforcement operations.
What's Next
Van Net's conviction can potentially be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, although details on whether he plans to pursue this option were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a significant reference point for future interactions between citizens and law enforcement, particularly in the context of First Amendment rights.