{"id":49439,"date":"2021-08-20T08:14:50","date_gmt":"2021-08-20T13:14:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49439"},"modified":"2021-08-26T04:33:02","modified_gmt":"2021-08-26T09:33:02","slug":"nd-when-video-contradicts-officer-trial-courts-credibility-determination-isnt-binding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49439","title":{"rendered":"ND: When video contradicts officer, trial court’s credibility determination isn’t binding"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Where the video of the stop clearly contradicts the officer\u2019s testimony on the basis for the stop, the appellate court can reject the trial court\u2019s credibility finding. Here, it was whether defendant\u2019s license plate light worked. The video showed it was working. State v. Boger<\/a>, 2021 ND 152, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 157<\/a> (Aug. 19, 2021) (h\/t reader):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

[\u00b616] The district court further found \u201c[the officer] credibly maintained that he believed the rear license plate was not illuminated, and any apparent illumination of the rear lights he later observed when his vehicle was behind the Defendant\u2019s stopped vehicle was a result of reflection from [the officer\u2019s] own headlights after he initiated the traffic stop.\u201d The officer\u2019s testimony is inconsistent with the body camera video. The still images from the video clearly show the officer\u2019s testimony is contrary to the video evidence. The images show a license plate light bright enough to reflect off the dark surface below the light.<\/p>

[\u00b617] We are not the first appellate court to consider video evidence that contradicts the testimony of an officer under a deferential standard of review for findings of fact. The Indiana Supreme Court has qualified its \u201calmost total deference\u201d in such situations: \u201cwhere the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court\u2019s findings, relying on such evidence and reversing the trial court\u2019s findings do not constitute reweighing.\u201d Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2017). The court explained further: \u201cTo be clear, in order that the video evidence indisputably contradict the trial court\u2019s findings, it must be such that no reasonable person could view the video and conclude otherwise.\u201d Id. To determine whether different interpretations of a video may be reasonable and thus whether deference remains appropriate, the appellate court must consider the video quality, the lighting and angle, and whether the video is a complete depiction of the events at issue. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 2015 PA Super 117, 116 A.3d 1139, 1144 (reversing denial of motion to suppress where a dash cam video \u201cclearly rebuts\u201d the officer\u2019s testimony, resulting in a conclusion that the trial court\u2019s factual findings were not supported by the record); Middleburg Hts. v. Wojciechowski, 2015-Ohio-3879, \u00b6\u00b6 17-19 (Ct. App.) (reversing denial of motion to suppress where video contradicted the officer\u2019s testimony regarding the basis for the traffic stop and showed trial court\u2019s findings were against manifest weight of the evidence). Indeed, we have previously suggested the same result if video evidence contradicts officer testimony on the critical facts. Crawford v. Director, N.D. Dep\u2019t of Transp., 2017 ND 103, \u00b6 7, 893 N.W.2d 770 (\u201cOur review of the video of the traffic stop does not contradict the arresting officer\u2019s testimony, and we do not reweigh that evidence or reassess the arresting officer\u2019s credibility.\u201d).<\/p>

[\u00b618] The video evidence in this case clearly rebuts the officer\u2019s testimony. We agree with the Indiana Supreme Court that in situations \u201cwhere the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court\u2019s findings, relying on such evidence and reversing the trial court\u2019s findings do not constitute reweighing.\u201d Love, 73 N.E.3d at 699. We conclude the court\u2019s finding that the license plate was not illuminated is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.<\/p>

[\u00b619] The district court\u2019s determination that the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Boger\u2019s vehicle was premised on two findings: the officer\u2019s testimony supported a finding the license plate was not legible and the license plate was not illuminated. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding the officer stopped Boger\u2019s vehicle for any reason other than the rear license plate was not illuminated, and no evidence the stop was initiated based on the lack of license plate legibility. The court\u2019s finding the rear license plate was not illuminated is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We reverse the court\u2019s decision denying the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress based on a finding the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion the rear license plate was not properly illuminated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Update: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

techdirt: North Dakota Supreme Court: An Officer’s Camera Is More Trustworthy Than His BS Testimony<\/a> by Tim Cushing
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Where the video of the stop clearly contradicts the officer\u2019s testimony on the basis for the stop, the appellate court can reject the trial court\u2019s credibility finding. Here, it was whether defendant\u2019s license plate light worked. The video showed it … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[96],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-standards-of-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49439"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49479,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49439\/revisions\/49479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}