Turner v. Driver

What Happened

In September 2015, Phillip Turner stood on a public sidewalk across the street from a Fort Worth police station, videotaping the building. He was unarmed and doing nothing illegal. Officers Grinalds and Dyess pulled up, got out of their patrol car, and approached him.

Grinalds immediately asked Turner for identification. Turner kept filming and asked if he was being detained. Grinalds said yes — he was being detained for investigation because the officers were “concerned about who was walking around with a video camera.” When Turner asked what crime he’d committed, Grinalds said, “I didn’t say you committed a crime.” The officer added: “We have the right and authority to know who’s walking around our facilities.”

Turner refused to provide identification. Grinalds and Dyess “suddenly and without warning” handcuffed Turner, took his camera, and placed him in the back of a patrol car. Grinalds told him, “This is what happens when you don’t ID yourself.” The officers rolled up the windows and left Turner there “for a while.” He banged on the door so they’d roll them down.

Lieutenant Driver eventually arrived, spoke with the officers, then asked Turner what he was doing. Turner explained he was taking pictures from the sidewalk. Driver asked for ID; Turner declined, saying he hadn’t been lawfully arrested. Driver responded: “You’re right.” After more discussion, the officers finally released Turner and returned his camera.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit addressed two constitutional questions — the First Amendment right to record police, and the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest.

First Amendment — Right to Record: The court held that the First Amendment does protect the right to record the police, joining every other circuit that had ruled on the question. The court grounded this right in basic First Amendment principles: the Amendment “goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” Filming police “contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy.”

However — and this is the critical qualification — the court held that this right was not clearly established at the time of Turner’s filming in September 2015. Because no Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent had recognized it, the officers received qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. But the court declared the right clearly established going forward.

Fourth Amendment — Unlawful Arrest: The court found that Turner’s detention escalated into a de facto arrest when officers handcuffed him and placed him in the patrol car without any investigative purpose. Officers lacked probable cause — the only reason given was Turner’s refusal to identify himself, which cannot alone justify an arrest. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim.

What It Means in Practice

Turner v. Driver is the foundational Fifth Circuit case for the right to record police. After February 2017, any officer in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi who interferes with someone lawfully recording police activity in a public place is violating clearly established law and cannot claim qualified immunity.

The case also reinforces that police cannot arrest someone solely for refusing to provide identification when the person has not been lawfully arrested. This is a powerful Fourth Amendment holding for anyone detained while exercising First Amendment rights.

Key limitations: The right to record is “subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions” that must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” The court did not define what specific restrictions would be reasonable.

How You Can Use It

• If police interfere with your recording: Cite Turner for the clearly established First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public. After February 2017, officers in the Fifth Circuit cannot claim QI for stopping lawful recording.
• Key quote on the right: “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” 848 F.3d at 688.
• Key quote on arrest for refusing ID: Turner’s complaint established a Fourth Amendment violation because “the police cannot arrest an individual solely for refusing to provide identification.” 848 F.3d at 695.
• Template language: “As the Fifth Circuit held in Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 688 (5th Cir. 2017), the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. [Defendant officer]‘s interference with Plaintiff’s recording violated this clearly established right.”
• When to cite: Any case involving police interference with recording, detention for filming, or arrest for refusing to identify while lawfully recording.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• Time, place, and manner restrictions: Defendants will argue that the recording occurred in a context where restrictions were reasonable — near an active crime scene, inside a restricted area, or in a manner that interfered with police operations. Turner explicitly left these restrictions undefined.
• Pre-February 2017 conduct: For incidents before this opinion, the right was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit. Officers get qualified immunity for earlier interference with recording.
• Security concerns: The officers in Turner argued that filming a police station could indicate someone “casing the station for an attack.” While the court found QI on the detention claim partly for this reason, future defendants may raise similar security-based justifications.

How to counter: Emphasize that you were on a public sidewalk, not interfering with any police activity, and that the recording was of public conduct. Turner confirms that the right exists subject only to narrow restrictions. If the defendant argues a security concern, demand specific articulable facts — not generalized anxiety about cameras.