Garrett Jennings Van Net was convicted in February 2025 of resisting/assaulting/obstructing a police officer after interfering with a traffic stop shortly before 11 p.m. in November 2022 along the highway between Gladstone and Escanaba.

ESCANABA — The Michigan Court of Appeals has denied an appeal from a Gladstone man who was arrested and convicted after approaching a traffic stop in 2022 while recording police officers and refusing repeated commands to keep his distance.

Garrett Jennings Van Net was found guilty by a Delta County jury in February 2025 of resisting, obstructing or opposing a police officer. He was sentenced to 45 days in jail and ordered to pay $258 in fines and fees.

The conviction stems from an incident that occurred shortly before 11 p.m. in November 2022 along the highway between Gladstone and Escanaba. Michigan State Police Troopers Cole Tardiff and Gavin LaMarche, who was a trainee at the time, were conducting a traffic stop involving a truck with a defective headlight.

According to the court’s opinion released Thursday, Van Net drove past the stop, activated his hazard lights, pulled his own truck over in front of the stopped truck, exited and approached the scene while holding up a cellphone to record.

The opinion describes Van Net as a self-proclaimed “First Amendment Auditor” who observes and films government officials interacting with the public.

Body camera footage showed discomfort among the occupants of the stopped truck as Van Net approached. Tardiff reacted, telling Van Net, “That’s close enough right there, sir,” directing him to remain about 20 to 30 feet away. According to the court, Van Net ignored the instruction.

“He instead pressed forward further, each step contrary to Tardiff’s additional commands until defendant reached a spot only a few feet from the stopped truck,” the opinion states.

Tardiff again instructed Van Net to “stay right there” and “not take another step forward.” The trooper then turned toward the patrol vehicle to assist LaMarche with processing the traffic stop.

According to the court, Van Net continued moving toward the stopped vehicle after Tardiff walked away. Observing the encounter from the patrol car, LaMarche stopped processing the driver’s information and joined Tardiff.

Tardiff then told Van Net, “Sir, I just told you don’t take another step forward … You’re starting to interfere with my traffic stop.”

Van Net responded by turning on his phone’s flashlight and shining it directly at Tardiff, prompting the trooper to tell him to remove the light from his face and move away from the stop. The two then bantered about Tardiff’s authority to issue orders.

Tardiff warned Van Net that he would be arrested for obstruction if he failed to return to the location where he had been instructed to remain.

“(Van Net) took a few steps back toward his own truck but ultimately ignored Tardiff’s directive, veering over to the front of the stopped vehicle and then back toward the passenger’s side,” the court wrote.

According to the opinion, Van Net continued challenging Tardiff’s instructions while keeping the flashlight on. Tardiff repeatedly warned him that moving closer to the truck again would result in arrest. Van Net did not comply and was subsequently arrested.

At trial, both troopers testified that Van Net disrupted the traffic stop. LaMarche said he was unable to continue processing the driver’s information because he had to assist Tardiff and that the encounter impeded their ability to safely and effectively conduct the stop.

After Van Net was found guilty in February 2025, he almost immediately appealed his conviction. The Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion Thursday, affirming the conviction.

“The bounds of the First Amendment are not limitless. Neither are the powers of law enforcement when conducting official duties. This case requires that we decide when one must give way to the other,” the court wrote.

Van Net’s appeal raised several constitutional challenges, primarily centered on claims that the statute governing resisting and obstructing a police officer is unconstitutionally vague.

Under established case law, a statute may be challenged as vague if it infringes on First Amendment rights, fails to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct or is so indefinite that it grants excessive discretion in determining whether a violation has occurred.

Van Net argued that the statute outlining resisting, assaulting, or obstructing a police officer sweeps in speech and press activities protected by the U.S. and Michigan constitutions, is otherwise vague for lack of fair notice and definitiveness and that his right to film the traffic stop trumped the troopers’ ability to control the scene.

“We emphatically reject these arguments,” the court wrote.

The court acknowledged that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in public.

“This right is of growing importance,” the court wrote. “Citizens who film police officers facilitate transparency and training and have ‘both exposed police misconduct and exonerated officers from errant charges,'” citing case law.

However, the court again emphasized the right is not unlimited.

Referring to case law, the court noted that the First Amendment does not grant a license to violate valid criminal laws and does not create a blanket right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or engage an officer in conversation during a stop.

“A police command to an individual exercising his or her right to film a police stop is lawful if it imposes a reasonable time, place and manner restriction that is justified without regard to content, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,” the court wrote.

The court concluded that, considering the totality of the circumstances, Tardiff’s orders were reasonable and did not violate Van Net’s First Amendment rights.

“At no point prior to the defendant’s arrest did Tardiff tell defendant to stop filming,” the court wrote. “Tardiff only instructed defendant on the location from which he could film … and to turn off the flash on the phone that the defendant shined directly at Tardiff.”

The court also cited the inherent dangers of traffic stops, stating that officer safety concerns provide a compelling justification for preventive measures designed to ensure officers can safely complete their duties.

Van Net additionally argued that Tardiff was biased against him because of a prior interaction. The court found no evidence in the record to support claims that Tardiff targeted him.

The appeal further raised issues involving an alleged conflict of interest related to a family connection between Tardiff and the prosecutor’s office, ineffective assistance of counsel, cumulative error and what he cited as an issue on his charging document.

Van Net said the charging document referenced him as a “Habitual offender – second offense notice” without identifying the underling conviction, though information contained in the lower court file identifies his 2007 attempted assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer prior attempted felony conviction.

The appellate court concluded that none of those claims had merit.