When the Court of Criminal Appeals began requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law on motion to suppress rulings, it was only a matter of time before a judge had to reveal whether he was (1) ruling on the law or (2) deciding not to believe the officer. Here is a good example of a prosecutor forcing the judge to answer the credibility question: read the case by clicking here.

Do you have a story about how this case has helped or hurt your case after a motion to suppress?

Will find out in Oages - the court of appeals got it right the first time - judge ruled incorrectly on a legal issue. We will see how the judge responds to the abatement and issues findings. I updated my requested findings to make the issue on the legal issue and specifically stated the officer was credible. Defense requested findings that makes the issue whether the officer had probable cause to stop (violation of a traffic code) or probable cause to search (incident to arrest), basically a credibility issue. I have not seen findings issued by the court yet.