the record as if it were deciding the matter at inception and make its own findings and conclusions.” Ibid. We cannot agree with the Appellate Division that the availability of a videotape of the troopers’ encounter with defendants, particularly in the context of a hearing where witnesses testified, extinguishes the deference owed to a trial court’s findings. See, e.g., United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1128 (10th Cir.2005) (noting “increasing availability of videotapes of traffic stops due to cameras mounted on patrol cars does not deprive district courts of their expertise as finders of fact, or alter our precedent to the effect that appellate courts owe deference to the factual findings of district courts”); United States v. Welerford, 356 F.3d 932, 935-36 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Navarro-Camacho, 186 F.3d
holding that it was proper for the district court to defer to the state courts findings as to whether a petitioners postconviction motion had been submitted according to ohios timeliness requirements recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings recognizing that an appellate court must defer to district courts findings denying defendants motion to suppress even when videotape of defendants encounter with state trooper is available holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo