[5] Philip Turner (AKA "The Battousai," after his YouTube channel) was standing on the sidewalk, across the street from the police station, recording.

The officers then demanded he provide identification, which he refused, citing Texas law 38.02 which does not require a person to identify themselves unless arrested.

"[13] When determining whether the officers had qualified immunity, the court looked at (1) whether a clearly established statute or constitutional right existed at the time of the incident; and (2) whether a reasonable official understood he violated the person's right.

The court therefore ordered that Turner's claims against Driver, Grinalds, and Dyess be dismissed, leaving only the City of Fort Worth as the defendant.

[19] The court also noted that the Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits held the right to film police activities was not "clearly established.

[22] To meet the burden, the court said "the plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

[25] In regards to the arrest, the court said that they limited their holding to the fact that Officers Grinalds and Dyees "could not prolong an investigative detention without an investigatory purpose.

"[24] The court decided that Turner had made a valid Fourth Amendment claim for the purposes of defeating the two officers' summary judgment.

[26] They found that the complaint showed Driver "diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel the officers' suspicions quickly.

[2]Overall, the 5th Circuit said that when Turner was arrested, there was no clearly established right to record police officers in public, so the doctrine of qualified immunity should be used.

[27][28] The court also reversed qualified immunity for Grinalds and Dyess regarding only Turner's Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful arrest.

[23] The Chief Justice, Edith Brown Clement, dissented from the majority's opinion that established going forward the First Amendment right to film the police in the Fifth Circuit.

[23] But, Judge Clement also believed that the majority had inappropriately decided on what is "clear established law" based on "a high level of generality.

Going forward, to win a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must allege that:(1) he was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) the officers' action caused him to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity, and (3) the officers' adverse actions were substantially motivated against Plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.

[33][34]This standard is found in Alexander v. City of Round Rock, which provided guidance going forward about when an officer violates a citizen's First Amendment right to record.

"[36] Even though Buehler's appeal was decided on March 3, 2022, the actual incident occurred on August 2, 2015, a month before Turner's arrest.

[36] Therefore, the court held that, regarding the First Amendment issue, no clearly-established right existed (except in the Constitution of the United States) at the time Buehler recorded the police.

[32] A Texas Western District Court in Flores v. Rivas, following Turner, found that the plaintiff adequately alleges a First Amendment retaliation claim against the defendant officer.

"[38][39] Before Fields, the Third Circuit had previously held in 2010 that there was no clearly established right that citizens had a right to videotape police officers during a traffic stop.