On Thursday, a man known online as the “Tyrant Terminator,” entered the Kewanee School Administration building on Main Street, recording with his phone camera. The recorded encounter involved Kewanee School District staff, the superintendent and two Kewanee police officers. The incident culminated in a video titled “Office Full of Karens Calls Cops Fast.”
James Snow, a self-proclaimed “First Amendment auditor,” has 150,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel. On Friday, he shared a nearly 34-minute video of the incident, which, by Tuesday, had been viewed over 63,000 times.
In the video, Snow encounters school staff and the Kewanee superintendent, who calls the police. In the recording, Snow tells his viewers that his purpose for visiting the administration building is to document and submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
After several interactions with the two police officers, Snow is able to make a FOIA request, before the police officers request that Snow leave the premises. But Snow refuses, insisting he would remain until the officers left. One of the officers then reaches out by phone and is able to speak with Police Chief Stephen Kijanowski for guidance. Following the call, the officers leave, bringing the encounter to an end.
First Amendment auditors, often referred to as citizen journalists, record interactions with public officials and employees in government spaces to test compliance with constitutional rights, including freedom of speech. While some auditors aim to uncover violations, others have turned auditing into a lucrative venture focused on gaining subscribers and advertising revenue. Snow has faced criticism online from one YouTuber, “1A Audits Exposé,” and other online critics of Snow allege that he has a lengthy police record.
Police Chief Kijanowski stated that both officers on the scene—Sean Gruszeczka, a resource officer for the Kewanee School District, and Officer Roy Carpenter—recognized the nature of the situation.
“Both officers quickly recognized that they were dealing with a First Amendment auditor. I also identified the nature of the situation right away when the officers contacted me from the scene,” Kijanowski said.
In the video, Officer Gruszeczka can be heard telling Snow, “We’ve been here, we’ve done this before with other people recording.” During the interaction, Gruszeczka asks for Snow’s name. But once Snow declines to identify himself and requests to be addressed as “sir,” the officer does not press further.
At no point did the officers threaten Snow with arrest. Instead, they asked him to leave the building or risk being trespassed. The police chief emphasized that the officers conducted themselves appropriately.
“Neither officer took any action that violated the individual’s constitutional rights. They did not detain, arrest, seize the individual’s phone or engage in any conduct that would be considered unlawful,” Kijanowski said, noting that police presence in public spaces does not infringe on individual rights.
Initially, Officer Gruszecka was unclear if the administration building’s lobby qualified as a public area, the police chief said. However, after Officer Carpenter contacted the chief, it was confirmed that the lobby was a public space. The officers then decided to end their involvement.
“I confirmed that the lobby is considered a public area, and therefore, the individual had the right to record there,” Kijanowski said.
Later, the chief spoke with administration staff about the legal protections surrounding public recording. The video sparked public debate, with the department receiving messages about how the incident was handled, he said.
“We respect those opinions and understand the importance of transparency and accountability. At the same time, it’s important for the public to know that law enforcement officers have the same right to be present in public spaces as any citizen, including individuals engaged in First Amendment auditing,” said Kijanowski.
He clarified that officers may ask for identification, but individuals are not obligated to provide it unless committing a crime. Officers can remain in public spaces as necessary, and in this case, school staff expressed feeling more secure with an officer present, despite no perceived physical threat from the man.
The chief explained that officers are trained to differentiate between consensual contact, reasonable suspicion and probable cause during interactions. According to Kijanowski, this situation was a consensual contact.
“This incident involved a consensual contact, and the officers did not engage in any actions inconsistent with the standards that apply to that level of interaction,” Kijanowski said.
Although the officers incorrectly suggested Snow could be trespassed for recording, he said, they took no enforcement action. Snow continued recording throughout the encounter, and his rights to free speech remained intact. Kijanowski cited United States v. Mendenhall (1980), explaining that a person is considered “seized” only if a reasonable individual would not feel free to leave.
“The person kept recording the entire time, and his free speech was not limited or stopped in any way,” Kijanowski said.
