United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50110 

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Michael Orville Anderson, II,

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:21-CR-2-1 

______________________________

Before Smith, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

A police officer in Killeen, Texas, stopped Michael Orville Anderson 

II for driving with a defective headlight. Anderson moved to suppress evidence of a firearm obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that the arresting 

officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him because video evidence from 

the encounter shows that both of his headlights functioned properly. Because 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

2

the video evidence does not unambiguously controvert the officer’s testimony from the hearing that Anderson’s light was out, we AFFIRM. 

In November 2020, Officer Reynaldo Contreras pulled over Anderson 

because his “left front headlight [was] out,” a violation of Section 547.302(c) 

of the Texas Transportation Code. During his discussion with Officer Contreras, Anderson admitted that he was a felon and possessed a firearm. Anderson was later charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

He moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop because, in Anderson’s view, Officer Contreras’s video of the encounter demonstrates that his 

headlights functioned properly. 

At the hearing, Officer Contreras testified that Anderson’s truck had 

a non-functioning driver’s side headlight. The magistrate judge found Officer Contreras credible and reviewed the video evidence. The magistrate 

judge recommended denying Anderson’s motion, and the district court 

adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Anderson was later convicted. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and his conviction. 

The Fourth Amendment generally requires officers to obtain a 

warrant before searching or seizing an individual. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 

20 (1968). However, police officers may briefly detain a person for 

investigative purposes if they can point to “specific and articulable facts” 

that give rise to the reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is 

committing, or is about to commit a crime. United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 

1029, 1033 (5th Cir. 2014). For a traffic stop to be justified, an officer must 

have reasonable suspicion “before stopping the vehicle.” United States v. 

Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005). The government bears the 

burden of showing that reasonable suspicion existed justifying the seizure. 

United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855, 859–60 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

3

Factual findings supporting the denial of a suppression motion are 

reviewed for clear error; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. United 

States v. Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 646 (5th Cir. 2020). We review “in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party, here the government.” United States 

v. Malagerio, 49 F.4th 911, 915 (5th Cir. 2022). Moreover, our review is 

“particularly deferential where denial of the suppression motion is based on 

live oral testimony because the judge had the opportunity to observe the 

demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v. Lim, 897 F.3d 673, 685 (5th Cir. 

2018) (citation omitted). Where testimony conflicts with video evidence, our 

court must view the “facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott v. 

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007). When video evidence is 

“ambiguous[,]” however, Scott v. Harris “has no application.” Aguirre v. 

City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 410 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Here, Officer Contreras stopped Anderson for violating Section 

547.302(c) of the Texas Transportation Code, which requires that “[a]t least 

one lighted lamp shall be displayed on each side of the front of a motor 

vehicle.” Specifically, Officer Contreras testified that Anderson’s truck

“did not have the headlights – the driver’s side headlights.” He later 

testified that the light emanating from the driver’s side of Anderson’s truck

came from a “fog lamp.” Because Officer Contreras recorded the traffic stop 

with dash, body, and rearview cameras, we must determine whether video 

evidence unambiguously contradicts Officer Contreras’s testimony. 

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

4

Officer Contreras’s dash camera shows Anderson’s truck, followed by 

another vehicle, driving towards Contreras. This video—the only video in 

the record of the truck’s lights before the stop—at first appears to reveal that 

Anderson’s two headlights functioned as required by Texas law: 

However, as Anderson continuestowards Officer Contreras, his driver’s side

headlight appears to flicker and dim:

While one could view this video evidence in its totality as supporting 

Anderson’s contention that both of his headlights were lit, we cannot say 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. Under Texas law, a lit fog lamp, without a headlight, does not fulfill 

the requirements of Section 547.302(c) of the Texas Transportation Code. 

Francis v. State, 425 S.W.3d 554, 557 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, no pet.) 

(“When reviewed in its totality, chapter 547 of the transportation code makes 

clear that headlights are required at night and distinguishes between the roles 

of headlights and fog lights in vehicle lighting.” (emphasis added) (footnotes 

and citations omitted)).

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

5

The magistrate judge relied on post-stop evidence like the body and 

rearview camera videos to determine whether Officer Contreras had 

reasonable suspicion. For example, he found that the “strongest evidence in 

support of the stop” was Anderson’s discussion with Officer Contreras in 

which Anderson acknowledged that his truck “only has one [headlight]”

when not on “high beams.” The parties also cite post-stop evidence in 

support of their respective positions. However, only “the facts known to the 

officer at the time” of the stop are relevant to the reasonable-suspicion 

analysis. United States v. Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation 

omitted). In any event, none of this post-stop evidence unambiguously 

contradicts Officer Contreras’s testimony. 

“We will find clear error only if a review of the record results in a 

‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United 

States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. 

Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011)). Because of the ambiguous 

nature of the dash camera video evidence in this case, we cannot say that the 

district court clearly erred. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

6

James E. Graves, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

A picture is worth a thousand words.1 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. The photographs below depict 

what Officer Contreras saw when he spotted Anderson’s truck.

Dash Camera Video 5756 at :04 (screenshotted)

Dash Camera Video 5756 at :06 (screenshotted)

There’s more. The photograph from the rearview camera confirms that both 

headlights were on as Officer Contreras drove away from Anderson’s vehicle 

with Anderson in the backseat of the police car. 

_____________________

1 The old adage was coined by Henrik Ibsen, a Norwegian playwright who died in 

1906. Henrick Ibsen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Ibsen (last visited May 30, 

2024). The modern use of the phrase first appeared in a San Antonio Light newspaper 

advertisement in 1918. Pictorial Magazine of the War, San Antonio Light, January 10, 1918, 

at 6.

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

7

Rearview Camera Video 6:26 (screenshotted) (emphasis added)

Moreover, Anderson’s friend, William Mecum, testified that the headlights 

were on when he drove the truck home immediately after Anderson’s arrest. 

Yet, the district court denied the motion to suppress. 

The majority concluded that the video evidence did not 

unambiguously controvert Contreras’s testimony that the headlight was 

out, but the “videotape tells quite a different story,” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 

372, 379 (2007). In the first image, the left headlight is larger than the right. 

In the second image, the left headlight is smaller than the right. But in both

photos, the headlights are functioning. The fact that the right headlight may 

seem smaller and the left headlight larger, or vice versa, is likely caused by 

differences in distance and/or glare on the windshield. “There are no 

allegations or indications that this videotape was doctored or altered in any 

way[.] The videotape quite clearly contradicts the version of the story” told 

by Contreras and adopted by the magistrate judge, the district court, and the 

majority. Scott, 550 U.S. at 378. Clearly, both headlights are functioning. 

Again, the images in the first two photos were captured as the vehicle was 

moving and then making a right turn.

The majority points to Anderson’s response to Contreras about the 

functionality of his headlight as an admission. It is worth noting that 

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 23-50110

8

Contreras did not inform Anderson of the alleged traffic violation until after 

Anderson confessed that he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Contreras 

asked Anderson to lean against the front of the patrol car and stated, “The 

reason I pulled you over Mr. Anderson is because your left front headlight is 

out. Has it been like that for a while?” Anderson responded, “No, well I just 

realized it was I guess because it’s running on high beams[.]”

The majority ignores that Contreras’ question presupposed that the 

headlight was out: “Has [the headlight] been [out] for a while?” Presuming 

the truth of Contreras’ statement, Anderson explains that he “guess[es] [it 

was out] because it’s running on high beams.” A guess is not an admission. 

Because the Government did not meet its burden of establishing that there 

was reasonable suspicion that Anderson’s left headlight was not on, the 

motion to suppress should have been granted. Anderson’s conviction should 

be vacated.

I respectfully dissent. 

Case: 23-50110 Document: 69-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/04/2024