Turner V. Driver Case Analysis

three police officers and the city of Fort Worth for violating his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in what came to be known as Turner v. Driver. Filed under the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court document explained that in 2015, Turner was “video recording a Fort Worth police station from a public sidewalk across the street when Defendant-Appellees Officers Grinalds and Dyess approached him and asked him for identification” (Turner v. Driver, 2015). Grinalds and Dyess handcuffed Turner after he refused to identify himself several times, confiscated his video camera and placed him in the back of a patrol vehicle. Lieutenant Driver, who arrived at the scene shortly after, released Turner and returned …show more content…
Driver, 2015). This brought up a particular concern; exactly how much authority can a police officer distribute towards a public citizen who is recording them? Based on the details, Turner did not do anything to incite officers Grinald and Dyess. He simply recorded the police station from the opposite side of the street without obstructing the peace. Additionally, the district court did recognize Turner’s right to film and record the police – it was not clearly established, though. During the time of this incident, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the district court in which the case was being held had not concluded if recording or filming the police was protected under the First Amendment. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit asserted the right to film and record the police under the First Amendment, but unfortunately, the issue of clear establishment remained unsettled.
Another case, Glik v. Cunniffe, highlighted the controversy in regards to the right to film and record the police. In 2007, Glik observed an arrest being made by three police officers in the Boston Common. “Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force to effect the arrest, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began recording video …show more content…
City Philadelphia case, which is consolidated with Geraci v. City of Philadelphia, both plaintiffs were restrained and prevented from videotaping the Philadelphia police during public duty. In the opinion of the court, Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro specified that both Fields and Geraci “were retaliated against even though the Philadelphia Police Department’s official policies recognized that “[p]rivate individuals have a First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties”” (Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 2017). To some, the act of filming in any circumstance is expressive conduct, which is essentially protected under constitutional rights. Even if police officers are uncomfortable with being filmed, they are not authorized to detain and or confiscate any materials that enable a private citizen to freely exercise their First Amendment rights (if a personal recording is considered to be a form of speech). The Saucier v. Katz, Pearson v. Callahan and Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle cases were cited as records of similarity in the court's decision. Both defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and Philadelphia could not be liable for the defendant’s choice of actions. However, the Philadelphia Police Department “instituted a formal training program to ensure that officers ceased retaliating against bystanders