Carla Gericke

On 24 March 2010, Gericke and others were en route in two cars to a friend's house when they were pulled over by police in the town of Weare, New Hampshire. She was advised she wasn't being pulled over, so she parked at a nearby school, and took out a video camera to film the interaction. Though the camera wasn't properly functioning, and she had announced to the officer that she was recording, a second officer approached her vehicle and demanded to see her camera. When she failed to hand it over, she was arrested. She was initially charged with disobeying a police officer and obstructing a government official. After an argument at the police station when the Weare PD refused to give her a receipt for her confiscated camera, she was also charged with unlawful interception of oral communications, a felony carrying a maximum 7-year sentence. All charges were dropped before going to trial. Gericke filed suit against the town and the officers. She claimed the officers' actions were "retaliatory prosecution in breach of her constitutional rights."[8]

The case went to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants, the individual officers involved in the incident, the Town of Weare, and Weare Police Department, filed motions for summary judgment, claiming they had qualified immunity because there was no established right to film a traffic stop. The court denied the motions, ruling instead that the officers had no reasonable expectation to privacy while performing their duties in public.[9][10] Based on a previous ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, the court found that Gericke's right to film the officers was established at the time of her arrest. Furthermore, the Appeals Court found that Gericke's First Amendment rights had been violated and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The case was settled for $57,500.[11][12][13] Regarding the outcome, Gericke said:

I'm glad the case is settled. It was a long road, but we now have a binding precedent affirming the First Amendment to record police at traffic stops. I am cautiously optimistic that the settlement will cause law enforcement to be more hesitant to arrest videographers exercising their rights. I think we've already seen positive change come out of this case in that regard.[14]

In 2013, the Concord Police Department referred to Free Staters as domestic terrorists in a federal grant application to the United States Department of Homeland Security for a Lenco BearCat, stating:

The State of New Hampshire's experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type. We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges.[15]

Gericke responded by saying:

The Concord NH Police Department has made false and misleading statements in a grant application for $258,024 in federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to receive a Lenco BEARCAT armored vehicle… I am alarmed and appalled at the cleverly worded insinuation that the FSP is a domestic terrorist threat, or that 'Free Staters' are 'active' and 'present daily challenges' to the Concord Police Department.

Individuals who sign up for the FSP generally subscribe to the non-aggression principle, an ethical stance which asserts that 'aggression' is inherently illegitimate. 'Aggression' is defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. Our website specifically states: 'Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome.'

The New Hampshire Constitution states: 'All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.' To discriminate against 'Free Staters' for their pro-liberty, pro-peace, small government ideological beliefs, and to defame an organization in the manner set forth in the DHS grant is unconscionable, and unconstitutional.

When the matter was brought before Concord's City Council, the issue was tabled after many residents came out to voice their opposition to the city's purchase of such a vehicle. Gericke and other activists led a campaign to stop the city from accepting the money based on false claims.[16] In the end, the council voted to accept the grant and buy the BearCat.[17] However, John Duvall, Concord's Chief of Police, did resign after the incident.[18]

On Friday, 13 May 2016, an entire neighborhood on the west side of Manchester, New Hamphire, where Gericke is a homeowner, was placed under lockdown with a shelter-in-place order when two officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries after being shot during a manhunt. The lockdown started and continued for more than five hours after the suspect had been apprehended. According to a Union Leader op-ed, the neighborhood "felt like a city under siege."[19] Several schools were closed for the whole day, and streets were cordoned off until 3pm, with residents unable to access their cars and thus unable to move freely or go to work. Heavily armed law enforcement officials with automatic weapons and police dogs patrolled the streets and searched cars, trash cans, and yards as helicopters circled overhead.

On 7 June 2016, Gericke organized a rally at Manchester City Hall, saying in a press release[20] prior to the event:

Back in 2013, the City of Concord ignored[21] more than 1,500 petitioners who expressed their disapproval of that BEARCAT acquisition. Folks worried then that it would lead to increased use of militarized police tactics in New Hampshire. We now know these concerns were real. I grew up in South Africa under apartheid--a police state--and even there, you did not see daytime curfews being imposed on entire neighborhoods. I moved to America to escape such things… not to see them manifest in my own backyard. Free people must be able to move freely, and liberty should never be sacrificed for ‘security’. It is exactly in times of crisis that you should not give up your constitutional rights and civil liberties.

Gericke addressed about 60 people[22] during the rally to highlight what organizers said was a growing militarization of city police. Signs read "More Mayberry, Less Fallujah," "Lock Downs are for Prisons," and "Free People Move Freely." In her speech[23] Gericke said:

When I say liberty, I mean as enshrined in the Constitution, and specifically the 4th Amendment, which says: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. It doesn’t say, except when X or Y happens. It doesn’t say except for lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders. It doesn’t say that law enforcement can rifle through people’s garbage cans or point guns at people’s heads. Daytime curfews have no place in a free society. And they damn well have no place in the Live Free or Die state.