Here courtesy of fourthamendment.com is a case which demonstrates how the police benefit from the benefit of doubt.
Trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress was erroneously denied. While the trial court has the credibility call and great deference in making findings of fact at a suppression hearing, the surveillance video of the area of defendant’s detention at the suppression hearing clearly contradicted the officer’s testimony about where and how things happened, and it showed that the motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Thompson, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 241 (La. App. 2d Cir. February 23, 2011). (Emphasis added.)
The judge in this case appears to have believed the police officer, despite the video of the encounter which contradicts the police testimony.
1. If there’d been no video available this police officer would have gotten away with it on the “why would the police lie” theory.
2. Uum, police officers do lie about the circumstances of a stop or an interrogation, but it takes a video to establish that – on appeal.