^^ Though I agree in principle with Mr Eye, I think there's also some value in her actions turning to distress, which tells me she was not being cold and calculating but actually a normal citizen doing something harmless. It speaks to lack of 'intent', perhaps.
I'm stunned they charged her. For a good lawyer, this actually makes her case stronger than if they just let her go, I think. IANAL. (civil case that is)
It would have been better if she had gone back inside, and also said 'if you step foot on my property, I'm filing suit for trespassing absent RAS and kidnapping among other things. I'm warning you to back off'.
I don't think it's 'illegal' to be anti-police, but he seems to be setting up a scenario to unlawfully act under a false charge. As the article says, they met for an hour elsewhere discussing how to charge her.
Edit to add: If you're going to do this type of thing, it makes sense to contact a lawyer (before you do it) and get some ideas on the legality and recourse, and protection afforded if done on your own property. IOW, get some backing. Maybe even have your lawyer agree to be on speed dial. Most people are aware that filming the police can get you into difficulty even if it's not illegal. You can film them and not be obvious, istm.
As far as the charge, if she had gone up to them, left her yard or the like it might have some validity. But the fact that it happened in front of her and she didn't approach makes me think it won't stand the test to validate this kind of charge. I wonder if this kind of thing can go to a jury. I bet the Sergeant took this into account, maybe selected a misdemeanor which would prevent a jury trial?