Turner v. Driver
2017 American appeals court decision
Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017), is a 2017 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed the First Amendment right to record the police. One of the officers involved was criminally indicted for a similar incident around the same time.
Background
Philip Turner ("The Battousai", after his YouTube channel) was standing on the sidewalk, across the street from the police station, recording. Several police officers came over, including at least one police car. Turner was questioned about what he was doing. The officers then demanded he provide identification, which he refused, citing Texas law 38.02, which does not require people to identify themselves unless arrested. According to the complaint, officers put Turner in the back seat of the cruiser, since he refused to give ID, saying, "We're gonna make you sweat," and Turner demanded to speak to a supervisor.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Turner v. Driver” is 2017 American appeals court decision. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Turner, Driver and American, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2017 American appeals court decision” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q60746550. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2017.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Turner v. Driver”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Turner v. Driver primary sources, Turner v. Driver archive and Turner research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Turner v. Driver”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Turner v. Driver” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.