Buehler v. Dear

What This Case Is About

Buehler v. Dear addresses the tension between a citizen’s right to film the police and officers’ authority to prevent interference with their duties. Antonio Buehler, a police-accountability activist, was arrested while “cop watching” — video-recording police activity on Austin’s crowded Sixth Street in the early morning hours. The case tests the boundaries of First Amendment protections for filming police and Fourth Amendment limits on arrest and force.

The Facts

In the wee hours of August 2, 2015, Antonio Buehler was engaged in his regular practice of recording police activity on Sixth Street in downtown Austin, Texas. Buehler and several Austin Police Department officers had repeated verbal confrontations about how close he was permitted to stand while recording their activities.

The bickering escalated. Officers contended that Buehler was interfering with their work by positioning himself too close. Buehler insisted he was merely filming from a lawful distance. Ultimately, Buehler was arrested for misdemeanor interference with the performance of official duties. Four Austin police officers took Buehler to the ground and handcuffed him. He suffered minor bruises and lesions.

Buehler brought § 1983 claims against the City of Austin and nine officers, alleging false arrest and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to film the police.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit ruled mostly for the defendants. The court:

• Dismissed the municipal liability claims against the City of Austin, finding insufficient evidence of a policy or custom causing the alleged violations.

• Dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claims, as the law regarding the precise boundaries of filming distance during active police operations was not clearly established at the time.

• Granted qualified immunity on false arrest claims, finding that the officers had arguable probable cause to believe Buehler was interfering with their duties given the crowded, fast-moving setting.

• Allowed certain excessive force claims to proceed where genuine disputes of material fact existed about whether the degree of force used — taking Buehler to the ground — was reasonable under the circumstances, given that his offense was at most a minor misdemeanor and there was a factual dispute about whether he posed any threat.

The court acknowledged the importance of the right to film police, established in Turner v. Driver, but emphasized that this right is not unlimited. How close a citizen may stand while recording in a crowded, dynamic law enforcement situation remains an unsettled question.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Buehler v. Dear is significant for several reasons:

• The right to record police has limits. While Turner v. Driver established that citizens have a First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public, Buehler shows that this right must be balanced against officers’ need to perform their duties without physical interference.

• “Arguable probable cause” protects officers. For qualified immunity purposes, an officer need not have actual probable cause — only “arguable” probable cause. If reasonable officers could disagree about whether the circumstances justified an arrest, qualified immunity applies.

• Excessive force is fact-specific. Even where an arrest is lawful, the force used to effectuate it must be reasonable under the Graham v. Connor framework. Minor offenses generally do not justify significant force.

• Municipal liability is hard to establish. Individual incidents, even involving multiple officers, may not establish the kind of policy or custom required for Monell liability.

Key Takeaway

If you were arrested while filming police, Buehler v. Dear shows that while the right to record is constitutionally protected, the precise boundaries of that right — especially regarding proximity during active police operations — remain unsettled. Excessive force claims may survive even when the underlying arrest is found lawful, but proving that a city has a policy or custom of retaliating against people who film police requires more than a single incident.