Johnson, Deborah Aileen, PD-0250-15

Johnson was stopped for a tail-lamp defect under Tex. Transp. Code § 547.322; the lamp emitted white light, not red, at 1000 feet.
Video recording of the stop was admitted; the recording showed the tail lamp emitting white light; Pell testified to a possible red light but had no independent recollection of its extent.
Defense presented witnesses who reconstructed the lamp damage showing red light at 1000 feet; defense exhibits and supplemental color photographs were later introduced.
Trial court found Pell credible, held the lamp was defective, and that the stop was justified; the traffic stop and subsequent arrest did not violate Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Petitioner pled guilty to DWI after the suppression motion was denied; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Johnson.
This petition for discretionary review challenges the standard of review for video evidence, the interpretation of the record regarding tail-light color, and whether supplemented color photographs were properly reviewed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard governs appellate review of video evidence at suppression?	Johnson argues de novo review is appropriate	Johnson’s view seeks de novo scrutiny; the court should not defer to trial findings	Johnson loses; the court holds that the appellate standard applied was proper (not de novo) and affirms the trial court’s findings.
Did the Court of Appeals properly interpret the record on tail-light color under the applicable standard?	Johnson contends the video is unreliable and the record supports red light at 1000 feet	Meeks and Pell testimony, plus the video, support white light; trial findings are credible	Johnson loses; the appellate court’s findings are supported by the record and the trial court’s credibility determinations.
Did the appellate court err in failing to review the supplemented color photographs showing tail-light red at 1000 feet?	Supplemental color photos prove red light at 1000 feet and negate the defect	Record review did not require those color photos to alter the outcome	Johnson loses; the result is upheld despite the issue regarding supplemental color photographs.

Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (video evidence may be reviewed de novo; does not depend on credibility/demeanor)
Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (affirms abuse-of-discretion review for video contents in certain contexts)
Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (analysis of video evidence and credibility standards)
Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (harm/record-review considerations in suppression)
Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. 1996) (relevance of record review and evidentiary considerations)
Vicknair v. State, 751 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (tail-light defective analysis under Tex. Transp. Code § 547.322)