A man who refused to store his cellphone before entering a Virginia Beach courthouse turned a routine security rule into a prolonged constitutional argument, ignored repeated warnings to leave, and was eventually arrested for trespassing.
The January 11, 2024, encounter was presented by the bodycam channel Van Balion using footage credited to 757 Police Videos on Facebook.
The man insisted that the publicly accessible courthouse lobby gave him the right to remain with his phone and record government employees, while deputies repeatedly explained that he could enter only after placing the device in a locker or returning it to his vehicle.
He was later convicted in two courts and lost an appeal after arguing that Virginia’s trespass law could not constitutionally be applied to him on public property.
Van Balion described the encounter as a familiar “sovereign citizen” or self-declared constitutionalist routine in which a person tries to turn clear instructions into an endless legal debate.
Courthouse Rules Required Him to Store the Phone
The dispute began at the courthouse security checkpoint, where the man asked what would happen if he walked farther into the building with his cellphone still in his pocket.
A deputy told him that courthouse rules prohibited him from bringing the device past the checkpoint because he did not qualify for an exception.
Lawyers could generally show a bar card, the officer explained, while anyone seeking another exception could raise the matter with the chief judge.
The man was given two simple choices: place the phone in an available locker or leave the building.
He then asked what would happen if he refused.
The deputy said he would be ordered to leave and could be arrested for trespassing if he remained.
The man responded by suggesting that deputies were trying to trespass him from a public lobby simply because he would not follow their rules.
Van Balion said that argument ignored a basic point: public buildings can still enforce security policies and control access to restricted areas.
A courthouse may belong to the public in a broad sense, but that does not mean every visitor can enter every area under any conditions they choose.
He Claimed the Policy Violated the Constitution
The man repeatedly asked whether courthouse rules remained valid if they conflicted with the Constitution.
The deputy declined to debate the issue and said officers were following a standing directive.
The man explained that he wanted to speak with an employee named Tracy about a form that could allow him to receive permission to record inside the courthouse.
He said he had previously submitted a similar request and wanted to document the employee’s response while filing another form.
That created an obvious circular problem.
He wanted to enter a restricted area with a recording device so he could record himself requesting permission to use a recording device inside that same restricted area.
The deputies told him he could conduct his courthouse business after storing the phone.
He refused.
Van Balion said the man was not being denied access to the building or prevented from filing paperwork. He was being told to follow the same entry process imposed on other visitors.
The distinction matters because a right to access a public facility does not usually erase neutral security requirements.
The man could challenge the rule through proper legal channels, but the entrance checkpoint was not a courtroom, and the deputies were not judges required to hear constitutional arguments on demand.
Deputies Gave Him Repeated Chances to Comply
At one point, the man stood near a doorway while continuing the conversation.
A deputy asked him to step aside because he was blocking access.
The man disputed that he was in the way and objected when the officer lightly touched him to guide him away from the entrance.
He later described that contact as strange and accused the deputy of touching him improperly.
The officer ended the discussion and ordered him to leave. The man said he would leave if the instruction was given under threat of arrest, but he continued talking and returned to the same questions.
Another officer even offered him two quarters for the courthouse locker. The man declined and said he could place the phone in his car if necessary, yet he still did not leave to do so.
Several deputies then summarized the options once again. He could lock up the phone and enter, take it to his vehicle, or leave the property.
The man continued trying to explain why he wanted to record, asked for names, questioned when officers were permitted to use force, and accused them of trying to violate his rights.
Van Balion’s narration was mocking, but the footage supported his larger point: the deputies were not hiding the rule or surprising the man with an arrest.
They explained the policy many times and made the consequences increasingly clear.
The Final Warning Ended in Handcuffs
The exchange reached its final stage when a deputy asked whether the man intended to enter properly or leave.
The man said he wanted to come inside.
The officer again explained that he could do so only by storing the phone.
The man then said that if police were telling him he would be arrested unless he left, he would leave.
A deputy gave him exactly that warning. “You’re going to be arrested unless you leave,” the officer said.
Instead of walking away, the man questioned whether the deputy was certain and claimed the order was unlawful. The officer then took hold of his arm, told him he was under arrest, and ordered him to place his hands on the wall.
The man protested that he had been leaving. Deputies disagreed, saying he had remained in place and continued arguing after receiving numerous warnings.
During the search following his arrest, he said he did not consent and demanded a lawyer.
An officer explained that his consent was not required for a search incident to arrest and that he could contact an attorney from jail.
The man then threatened lawsuits, accused deputies of losing qualified immunity, said they were violating their constitutional oaths, and referred to one officer as a “pirate.”
None of those declarations changed the immediate situation.
Threatening legal action does not stop an arrest, and loudly invoking constitutional language does not automatically establish that a constitutional violation occurred.
Two Courts Found Him Guilty
According to Van Balion and 757 Police Videos, the man was charged under Virginia law with trespassing after being forbidden to remain.
A General District Court judge found him guilty.
He then appealed to Circuit Court, where he received a new bench trial in September 2024 and was convicted again.
The court sentenced him to 30 days in jail, with one day suspended, followed by 12 months of unsupervised probation.
He appealed once more, arguing that the evidence did not support the conviction and that the trespass statute could not constitutionally be applied to his conduct.
His position was that he had a good-faith right to remain in the courthouse lobby because the area was open to the public.
He also argued more broadly that a citizen could not be prosecuted for trespassing on public property.
The Virginia Court of Appeals rejected both claims.
Van Balion said the court noted that established law allows trespass statutes to apply to public property when a person has been lawfully directed to leave.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction on May 19, 2026.
An appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia was still pending at the time of the video.
Public Access Does Not Mean Unlimited Access
The case illustrates the difference between a public right and an unlimited personal entitlement.
The man was entitled to visit the courthouse and conduct legitimate business, but he was not entitled to ignore the building’s security directive because he personally believed it was unconstitutional.
He had several lawful options.
He could have stored the phone, returned it to his car, asked the chief judge for an exception, completed the required media request, or challenged the policy through the courts without forcing an arrest at the entrance.
Instead, he treated every answer as the beginning of another hypothetical question.
The deputies may have sounded impatient by the end, but their frustration followed a long series of explanations, warnings, and opportunities to comply.
The man ultimately did exercise his right to challenge the rule in court.
He simply did not receive the answer he wanted.
The Court of Appeals concluded that a publicly accessible lobby could still be regulated and that remaining after a lawful order to leave could support a trespass conviction.
That result does not mean government rules are beyond constitutional review.
It means individuals cannot declare a policy unconstitutional on the spot and then expect law enforcement to accept that personal judgment as controlling law.
The courthouse offered him access under a clear condition.
He refused the condition, refused to leave, and later argued that the public nature of the building protected him from trespass law.
Two trial courts and an appellate court disagreed.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
