The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa on Tuesday announced their support for a Des Moines man who is attempting to sue city police officers for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by detaining him and seizing his camera while he was filming in public.

Daniel Robbins said he "was surrounded, detained and threatened with arrest" on May 10, 2018, when he recorded a Des Moines Police Department employee illegally parked in front of a "no parking" sign outside the police station.

The ACLU last week filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to highlight the free speech and racial justice implications of the case, according to a Tuesday news release.

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said in a statement that Robbins' case is important to the protection of individual's right to record police as long as they aren't interfering with their official duties.

"Cellphone recordings of police interactions have proved a vital tool to document and deter racial profiling and disproportionate use of force, helping to propel important efforts for reform,” Bettis Austen said, citing a 2018 stop of two young black men by Des Moines police captured on squad car and body camera footage. The men in a lawsuit alleged racial profiling by two of the city's white police officers; the city paid $75,000 to settle the suit.

Robbins argued in his lawsuit, which names the city and police officers Brad Youngblut, Joseph Leo and Christopher Curtis as defendants, that the officers violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and that the city failed to properly train the officers on what his rights are when recording police.

The radio producer and journalist alleged in court filings that he was standing on East Second Street when he saw a police employee leave the police station, get into an illegally parked vehicle and drive away. Robbins began recording what he saw on his phone, the lawsuit states.

A recording of the stop that appears to include video from Robbins' phone and from officers' body cameras was published on YouTube on July 5.

While filming, Robbins crossed the street to stand on the sidewalk nearest to the police station. At that point, Youngblut approached Robbins in a vehicle and asked what he was doing and told him he was being "a little suspicious" because he was taking pictures of officers' personal vehicles.

Other officers approached Robbins and asked what he was doing. He said, "I'm taking pictures because it is perfectly legal for me to be taking pictures." Robbins declined to give his name or produce an ID when asked.

Police took Robbins' Samsung Galaxy phone and a Canon camera, stopped his recording, then patted him down and searched his pockets. After several minutes, police let him go without citing him or arresting him. Robbins says police told him he was trespassing at the police headquarters.

Charles Wolle, a senior U.S. district judge, dismissed Robbins' lawsuit in July.

He ruled that protected activity was not the provocation for officers to seize Daniel Robbins' camera and phone after he recorded police department employees from the sidewalk behind the department's headquarters.

After Robbins did that and declined to explain his purpose to officers, they had probable cause for a search and seizure, Wolle wrote.

"Robbins' actions in photographing police cars outside the station created reasonable suspicion among the officers that he was engaging in criminal activity," Wolle wrote, adding that Robbins was given "ample opportunity to allay the officers' suspicion."

Because Robbins' rights were not violated, the police under the law are immune from such a lawsuit, Wolle said.

Robbins appealed Wolle's decision in July.

Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders, assistant city attorney for the city of Des Moines, argued in previous court documents that Robbins was "uncooperative and evasive" after a detective explained the department's concerns about recent car thefts. This behavior further raised suspicions, she wrote.

"A reasonable officer, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe he had probable cause to seize this camera to investigate whether Mr. Robbins was engaged in criminal activity related to vehicles," she wrote.

Mackel-Wiederanders also argued that, even though Robbins may have the constitutional right to videotape law enforcement, such behavior could still be considered suspicious: "What was not articulated to Mr. Robbins is the awareness of detective Youngblut about previous stalking-type activities very similar, taking videos and monitoring activities of officers, that led to the murder of a Des Moines Police Department Officer, Anthony Beminio and an Urbandale Police Officer, Justin Martin." Those high-profile killings took place in November 2016.

Anna Spoerre covers crime and courts for the Des Moines Register. She can be contacted at aspoerre@dmreg.com, 515-284-8387 or on Twitter at @annaspoerre.

Your subscription makes work like this possible. Subscribe today at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.