United States v. Anderson

In United States v. Anderson, No. 23-50110 (5th Cir. June 4, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Anderson’s motion to suppress. Anderson had argued that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle, emphasizing that video evidence revealed both his headlights had been functioning properly, contrary to the officer’s claim.

In the district court, the officer had testified that one of Anderson’s headlights was not functioning, and the judge found the testimony credible after reviewing the video evidence. As a result, Anderson’s motion to suppress was denied because the officer had a reason to stop the vehicle. See Tex. Transp. Code § 547.302(c) (“At least one lighted lamp shall be displayed on each side of the front of a motor vehicle.”).

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the video evidence “unambiguously contradicted” the officer’s testimony. It included two screenshots from the video evidence, one of which “appear[ed] to reveal that Anderson’s two headlights functioned” and one that showed “his driver’s side headlight appear[] to flicker and dim.”

In the court’s view, “one could view this video evidence in its totality as supporting Anderson’s contention that both of his headlights were lit,” but the court did not find that it “unambiguously controverts Officer Contreras’s testimony that the driver’s-side headlight was out, and that only Anderson’s fog lamp provided light.”

Judge Graves’ dissent begins with this: “A picture is worth a thousand words. But I guess you ought not believe your lying eyes if a Killeen police officer contradicts what you see. The photographs from Officer Contreras’ dash cam video clearly show that the headlights on Anderson’s truck are on.”

He relies on the majority’s pictures, as well as another video appearing to show two working headlights. Beyond that, he notes another witness’s testimony that “the headlights were on when he drove the truck home immediately after Anderson’s arrest.”

For those reasons, Judge Graves would have vacated Anderson’s conviction because the motion to suppress should have been granted.