After reading this ruling and the original district court ruling [1], this article seems to be sensationalized clickbait.
The Eighth Circuit didn't offer any opinion on the Constitutional questions (citing Rule 47B, affirmation without opinion), probably because they were irrelevant to the case. Akins wasn't arrested for filming police, in fact, according to the district court ruling, the police affirmed his right to film more than once.
Akins complained about several incidents of alleged police harassment and the district court ruled that the police acted reasonably. According to the District Court, his complaints and the court's ruling thereon included:
he was arrested for marijuana possession at a DUI checkpoint ("Akins admitted in deposition that the material may have been his marijuana."). During the arrest, a concealed, loaded gun was found in a holster under his shirt ("Akins said he did not [have a concealed carry permit] and that his attorney told him he did not need one to carry a gun in the car.");
he was handcuffed on the side of the road while an officer searched his car without permission, after he admitted he had a rifle in the back, while a weapons charge was pending against him;
he was pulled over by police and asked for ID ("The interaction
lasted less than two minutes.")
he was arrested for driving without a license or proof of insurance, and for carrying a butterfly knife (which are apparently illegal in Missouri).
1: http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/mowd/BNJpmR...