Phillip Turner v. Driver
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2769
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Turner was videotaping the Fort Worth police station from a public sidewalk; unarmed.
- Officers Grinalds and Dyess approached, asked for ID; Turner refused and asked if he was detained.
- Officers handcuffed Turner, took his camera, placed him in the patrol car; Turner was left in the back seat until a supervisor arrived.
- Lieutenant Driver arrived, spoke with the officers and Turner, then released Turner and returned his camera.
- Turner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations; district court granted qualified immunity to the officers; Turner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment protects recording police | Turner: recording public police activity is protected speech/press; officers violated that right | Officers: no clearly established First Amendment right to record police in Sept 2015; entitled to qualified immunity | Court: Right was not clearly established then — officers get qualified immunity; but court holds prospectively that First Amendment protects recording police subject to reasonable time/place/manner limits |
| Whether initial stop/detention violated Fourth Amendment (reasonable suspicion) | Turner: detention was unlawful because officers lacked reasonable suspicion | Officers: location (police station) and context justified suspicion; actions reasonable | Court: viewing facts in complaint, detention was not objectively unreasonable given security concerns — officers entitled to qualified immunity on detention claim |
| Whether handcuffing and placing in patrol car converted detention to arrest requiring probable cause | Turner: handcuffing and leaving him in car amounted to de facto arrest without probable cause | Officers: actions were investigatory and reasonable for safety; not an arrest | Court: Allegations support that handcuffing and placing Turner in patrol car went beyond a Terry stop and lacked probable cause — Grinalds and Dyess are not entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful-arrest claim; Driver is entitled to immunity |
| Supervisor liability for actions after arrival | Turner: Driver prolonged or ratified unlawful seizure after arriving | Driver: no personal involvement in unconstitutional conduct; investigated and released Turner promptly | Court: Driver investigated and released Turner; no plausible allegation of personal involvement in prolonging seizure — Driver entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; courts accept well-pleaded facts and disregard mere conclusions)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity prongs and discretion to address either prong first)
- al‑Kidd v. Ashcroft, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (law must be clearly established with particularity; do not define at a high level of generality)
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (First Amendment protects filming police in public, subject to time/place/manner restrictions)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (protecting audio/ audiovisual recordings of police under First Amendment principles)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may briefly detain on reasonable suspicion)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion for stops)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (limits on compelled identification during detentions)