Irizarry v. Yehia
The Tenth Circuit expressly recognized a First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public and held that the right was clearly established by May 2019.
Executive Summary
Irizarry is the Tenth Circuit’s leading right-to-record decision. Unlike Frasier v. Evans, which assumed the right but granted qualified immunity for a 2014 encounter, Irizarry expressly recognized that the First Amendment protects filming police performing official duties in public and held that the right was clearly established by the time of a May 2019 traffic stop.
Abade Irizarry, a YouTube journalist and blogger, and several other citizen journalists were filming a DUI traffic stop in Lakewood, Colorado. Officer Ahmed Yehia arrived after officers at the scene reported that several men were filming. According to the complaint, Yehia deliberately positioned himself in front of Irizarry’s camera, shined a bright flashlight into the camera, drove his cruiser toward Irizarry and another journalist, and used the vehicle’s air horn to harass them.
The district court concluded that Irizarry had alleged a First Amendment violation but granted Yehia qualified immunity because the Tenth Circuit had not previously squarely recognized the right to record police. The Tenth Circuit reversed.
The First Amendment protects filming police officers performing their duties in public. By May 26, 2019, that right was clearly established in the Tenth Circuit based on core First Amendment principles, Tenth Circuit precedent concerning creation of speech, and the overwhelming consensus of other federal circuits.
The DUI Traffic Stop
Early on May 26, 2019, Irizarry and three other YouTube journalists or bloggers were filming a DUI traffic stop in Lakewood. They used cell phones and cameras to capture the encounter for later broadcast, livestreaming, premieres, and archiving on their social-media channels.
Officers at the scene contacted Officer Yehia to report that four men were filming the stop. Yehia arrived in a marked police cruiser with its emergency lighting activated.
According to Irizarry’s complaint, Yehia intentionally positioned himself directly in front of Irizarry to obstruct the camera’s view of the roadside sobriety testing.
Irizarry and fellow journalist Eric Brandt objected and loudly criticized Yehia. The officer allegedly responded by shining an extremely bright flashlight into their cameras, saturating the camera sensors and interfering with the recordings.
The complaint further alleged that Yehia later drove his cruiser directly toward Irizarry and Brandt, made a U-turn, accelerated toward Brandt, swerved around him, stopped, and repeatedly sounded the air horn. Another officer eventually instructed Yehia to leave the scene because of his disruptive behavior.
The case reached the Tenth Circuit after dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The appellate court therefore accepted Irizarry’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewed them in his favor. The decision did not constitute final factual findings after trial.
The First Amendment Right to Record Police
The Tenth Circuit expressly recognized for the first time that filming police officers performing their duties in public is protected First Amendment activity.
The court identified three established First Amendment principles supporting the rule. First, public discussion of governmental affairs lies at the core of the First Amendment, and recording police serves a government-watchdog function.
Second, constitutional protection for gathering news and information is necessary to make later publication meaningful. Filming police is a form of information gathering about government conduct.
Third, the Tenth Circuit’s own precedent had already recognized that creating speech—including photography and video recording—is itself protected activity rather than merely unprotected conduct.
The court also relied on the substantial consensus among other federal circuits recognizing the right to film police performing public duties.
In the Tenth Circuit, filming police officers performing their official duties in public is protected First Amendment activity, subject to lawful restrictions applicable to the circumstances.
First Amendment Retaliation
Irizarry alleged that Yehia interfered with and harassed him because he was filming and criticizing the officer. The Tenth Circuit analyzed the claim under its established three-part retaliation framework.
First, Irizarry was engaged in protected activity by filming the traffic stop and criticizing Yehia. Second, the alleged conduct—blocking the camera, shining a flashlight into it, and driving the cruiser toward the journalists—was sufficiently adverse that it could chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to film.
Third, the complaint plausibly alleged retaliatory motive because the officer’s conduct occurred directly in response to the journalists’ filming and objections.
Interference need not take the form of arrest. Conduct intended to obstruct recording, intimidate a recorder, or punish a person for filming can support a First Amendment retaliation claim when it would deter an ordinary person from continuing the protected activity.
Why the Right Was Clearly Established by 2019
The district court had focused on the absence of a prior Tenth Circuit case with materially identical facts. The appellate court took a broader view of clearly established law.
The Tenth Circuit explained that persuasive authority from other circuits can clearly establish a right when the consensus is sufficiently strong to place reasonable officers on notice.
By May 2019, the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits had all published opinions recognizing First Amendment protection for filming police performing public duties. The court described the right as “beyond debate.”
Tenth Circuit precedent also protected creation of speech and had relied on right-to-record cases from other circuits in related First Amendment contexts. Taken together, those authorities supplied clear notice even though the Tenth Circuit had not previously issued a factually identical police-recording decision.
By May 26, 2019, a reasonable officer in the Tenth Circuit had fair notice that a person lawfully filming police performing their public duties was engaged in protected First Amendment activity.
How Irizarry Fits With Frasier v. Evans
At first glance, Frasier and Irizarry may appear inconsistent. They are not. The critical difference is the date of the underlying encounters.
Frasier involved conduct in August 2014. The Tenth Circuit held that the right to record police had not yet become clearly established by that date.
Irizarry involved conduct almost five years later, in May 2019. During that interval, the body of national appellate authority grew significantly, and Tenth Circuit speech-creation cases clarified relevant First Amendment principles.
The result is a timeline rather than a doctrinal contradiction: not clearly established in 2014; clearly established by May 2019.
Do not cite Frasier as current authority that the Tenth Circuit right to record remains unsettled. Irizarry expressly recognized the right and held that it was clearly established by May 2019.
What Irizarry Does—and Does Not—Establish
- The case recognizes the right to film police performing official duties in public; it does not create an unrestricted right to record anywhere.
- The plaintiffs were filming from a public street and did not impede officers performing the DUI investigation.
- The case does not eliminate reasonable safety, access, distance, or scene-control restrictions supported by objective facts.
- The right was held clearly established by May 26, 2019; earlier incidents require separate historical qualified-immunity analysis.
- The court relied on both Tenth Circuit principles and a substantial out-of-circuit consensus.
- The ruling arose at the motion-to-dismiss stage and accepted Irizarry’s allegations as true.
- The decision involved both recording and verbal criticism; both forms of activity contributed to the retaliation analysis.
- The case does not authorize a recorder to physically obstruct officers or disregard otherwise lawful police commands.
Agency Guidance
Primary Sources and Further Reading
This monograph is provided for training and general informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not replace review of the complete opinion, current statutes, controlling federal and state authority, agency policy, or consultation with prosecutors and agency counsel.
© 2026 Shield Public Safety Training. All rights reserved. Reviewed September 7, 2026.