Tennessee court hears appeal challenging convictions over post office filming

NASHVILLE — The Tennessee appellate court heard oral argument in State of Tennessee v. George Patterson on the sufficiency of evidence and First Amendment limits after Patterson's video recording inside a post office led to convictions for assault on an officer and disorderly conduct.

Lisonbee Berryhill, an attorney with the appellate division of the National Public Defender's Office, told the court the case raises broad constitutional questions but that the court need not reach them if the convictions cannot be sustained on the evidence presented at trial. "The evidence is insufficient to support these charges," Berryhill said, arguing that a one-handed push of an officer's hand does not rise to the statutory "offensive contact" required for an assault-on-an-officer conviction.

Berryhill recounted the recorded exchange: Patterson entered a post office to question a poster about rules, filmed employees after being asked to stop, remained in the mailbox area while the service counter was closed, and resisted an officer's attempt to remove him only briefly before being carried outside and complying. She emphasized that the resisting-arrest charge was rejected by the jury, and that Patterson was acquitted of resisting but convicted of the assault and disorderly conduct counts. She also noted the collateral stakes: the offense at issue has been elevated, with the record referencing a $10,000 minimum fine and a short term of confinement under current law.

Ben Ball, arguing for the state, countered that the video shows an officer attempting to take Patterson and Patterson "slaps his hand away," behavior a reasonable jury could find "extremely offensive or provocative" under Tennessee case law. Ball said the disorderly-conduct conviction was similarly supported because Patterson's conduct created a physically offensive or hazardous condition and the jury could infer intent circumstantially from his repeated, loud proclamations on the recording and the fact the video was later posted online.

The parties also disputed the First Amendment question of whether the post office is a public forum for the purpose of recording government employees. Berryhill said Patterson is a "First Amendment auditor" who films government activity in public spaces to preserve rights and that some parts of the post office are at least limited public forums for postal business. Ball argued the post office is a nonpublic or limited forum where the government may impose reasonable restrictions on filming at service counters and that the First Amendment does not necessarily protect Patterson's conduct inside the counter area.

Neither the court nor the judges announced a ruling at the hearing. The attorneys left the bench after the court's brief closing remarks and were invited to stay for an informal discussion with students in the courtroom.

The appeal centers on whether the record presented at trial — principally the parties' videos and the jury's findings — supports the convictions and, if not, whether the constitutional questions about filming in a federal post office should be reached. The court has not yet indicated when it will issue an opinion.