Tenth Circuit Affirms Qualified Immunity Against First Amendment on Probable Cause of Interference

The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff Michael Eravi’s assertions of First Amendment retaliatory arrest following his removal from a standoff between officers with the Lawrence Kansas Police Department and an active shooter. Eravi claimed the police officers retaliated against him by removing him from an active crime scene because he’d previously reported alleged corruption within the Department. The Tenth Circuit found these claims to be meritless.

Eravi is a citizen journalist who records interactions with local law enforcement in pursuit of exposing corruption within government. On May 19, 2023, Lawrence Police Department officers were engaged in an hours-long standoff with an active shooter. The shooter had retreated into a residence while officers surrounded the property to observe all entrances and exits and negotiate a resolution.

At 1:53 a.m., Eravi approached the secure perimeter to record the officers’ deescalation efforts. Eravi filmed his subsequent encounter with the officers when officers instructed him to leave the premises and return to his home. Eravi ignored the instructions and proceeded to approach the location of the armed suspect, placing himself and the officers in additional danger.

Because Eravi continued to ignore the officers’ orders, officers arrested Eravi for interfering with an active crime scene. Eravi filed a lawsuit, claiming that the officers arrested him only because they did not want to be recorded. The officers moved to dismiss the claims, arguing probable cause supported the arrest because Eravi interfered with the crime scene and caused significant safety issues.

Though the First Amendment offers broad protection, including the right to film interactions with law enforcement officers, it does not protect an individual’s interference with active crime scenes, nor does it permit activity which compromises safety.

This case emphasizes the importance of a law enforcement officer’s burden to provide clear, unequivocal orders when assisting the public, and the duty of individuals to follow the commands. The provision of specific instructions, as well as compliance with those directives, are key to ensuring safety is maintained.

Read more: Eravi v. City Comm’n of Lawrence, Kansas, No. 25-3068, 2026 WL 1412970 (10th Cir. May 19, 2026)