848 F.3d 678
N.D. Tex.2017Background
- Turner stood on a public sidewalk across from the Fort Worth police station videotaping the building and officers; he was unarmed.
- Officers Grinalds and Dyess approached and repeatedly demanded Turner’s identification; Turner refused and asked if he was detained.
- Grinalds and Dyess handcuffed Turner, took his camera, placed him in the patrol car, and left him handcuffed in the back while windows were rolled up.
- Lieutenant Driver arrived, spoke with the officers and Turner, then released Turner and returned his camera.
- Turner sued the officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations; the district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on all claims; Turner appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim and on the unlawful-detention (reasonable-suspicion) Fourth Amendment claim, reversed as to unlawful-arrest (probable-cause) against Grinalds and Dyess, and affirmed qualified immunity for Driver on all Fourth Amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment protects recording police and was it clearly established in Sept 2015 | Turner: Recording police is protected speech and officers violated that right by seizing and seizing his camera | Officers: Right was not clearly established; they reasonably believed questioning/detention lawful | Court: Right to record police exists (subject to reasonable time/place/manner limits), but it was not clearly established in Sept 2015; officers entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claim |
| Whether initial stop/detention required reasonable suspicion (Terry) | Turner: Initial detention was unlawful because no reasonable suspicion | Officers: Their location (in front of a police station) and context justified reasonable suspicion | Court: Given totality of circumstances, initial detention/questioning was objectively reasonable; officers entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful-detention claim |
| Whether handcuffing and placement in patrol car converted the stop into an arrest requiring probable cause | Turner: Handcuffing and placing him in car for a period amounted to a de facto arrest without probable cause | Officers: Actions were investigatory precautions and did not necessarily constitute arrest | Court: Allegations plausibly plead a de facto arrest and lack of probable cause; Grinalds and Dyess not entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful-arrest claim; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether Lieutenant Driver is liable as a supervisor for continuing detention/arrest | Turner: Driver prolonged or continued the unconstitutional seizure after arriving | Driver: No personal involvement in initial detention; he investigated and promptly released Turner | Court: Driver investigated and promptly released Turner; no personal involvement in unconstitutional arrest; Driver entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (recognizes First Amendment protection for videotaping police performing duties in public)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (audio recording of police implicates First Amendment scrutiny)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established-law inquiry must avoid overbroad generalizations)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officers)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (limits on refusals to identify in certain investigatory contexts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may conduct brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion analysis uses totality of the circumstances)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (investigative detention must be temporary and not exceed necessary scope)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (assess reasonableness of detention duration by whether police diligently pursued means of investigation)
- Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2015) (consider information available to officers at time of stop for reasonable-suspicion analysis)