United States v. Shelby Darby, 19-30593

Shelby Jude Darby pleaded guilty conditionally to possession of firearms by a felon, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
Arrest arose from a traffic stop on November 1, 2017; Corporal Ricky Fontenot testified he observed a window-tint violation before initiating the stop.
Darby moved to suppress evidence, arguing Fontenot’s testimony was unreliable and that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
The magistrate judge and district court credited Fontenot’s testimony after an evidentiary hearing and denied the suppression motion.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, then affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion because Officer Fontenot observed a window-tint violation before stopping Darby	Officer Fontenot observed the tint violation prior to the stop, giving reasonable suspicion to effectuate the stop	Darby contended the officer’s testimony was inconsistent/incredible and he did not see the tint violation before stopping the car, so there was no reasonable suspicion	Court held district court did not clearly err in crediting Fontenot; recollection could be refreshed and stop was supported by reasonable suspicion (affirmed)

United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of review: clear error for facts, de novo for legal conclusions in suppression rulings)
United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2005) (deference to credibility findings based on live testimony)
United States v. Scott, 892 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2018) (testimony is "incredible as a matter of law" only when witness could not possibly have observed the facts)
United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) (refreshing recollection with documents can support credibility determinations)