How to Obtain Records and Evaluate What They Prove
A crash report can give you a starting point without settling your injury claim. Get the report, then ask what else the agency has. The photograph, recording or note behind an entry may explain something the form doesn't.
Obtain the report through the appropriate channel
Have the crash date, location, names and any report number available when you use TxDOT's crash-records service. Follow its eligibility and identification requirements. Save the whole file you receive, with a note identifying its source.
Find out which agency investigated before sending a local records request. Being in Dallas County doesn't necessarily mean Dallas Police responded. It could have been another city's department or another agency.
TxDOT does not hold the investigating agency's photographs, field notes or dashcam footage in its crash-report files. Request those separately from the agency. Access can involve lawful withholding, redaction or delay.
Read the report as a set of factual leads
Read the diagram alongside the narrative and photographs. Check the names, vehicles, road, movements, witnesses and contributing factors. Then ask how the officer obtained each disputed fact. Seeing the collision, measuring the scene afterward and repeating a driver's account are different sources of information.
For an entry you believe is wrong, give your lawyer:
- The exact page, box or sentence in dispute.
- The competing description—for example, a lane shown differently in the sketch and narrative.
- Photographs or other material that may contradict the reported movement.
Keep both versions. A discrepancy calls for investigation; it does not establish which version is correct.
You don't have to supply a speed or signal color you didn't see. Describe the impact from memory and say which details came from someone afterward. You can seek other evidence for details you cannot recall.
Prepare for evidentiary questions
A report offered in court needs a foundation. Counsel must examine authentication, public-record rules, opinions and the statements inside it. The officer's own observation and a bystander's quoted account need not receive the same treatment. Find the person behind the statement where possible.
Keep the original agency files and the information supplied with them. Check the footage for:
- When the recording starts.
- Whether sound is present.
- Whether any part of the relevant interval is missing.
Label a shortened presentation as edited.
The report, dispatch data, body-camera video and ambulance records may be held in different places. Make a list showing the custodian for each and which requests remain unanswered. One request for everything may not reach all of those systems or organizations.
An example of a report disagreement
Suppose you're looking at a failure-to-yield entry, but a shop's recording seems to show a different approach. Keep the original. Its clock needs to be checked. Also compare the officer's sources with what the camera actually shows. If the issue turns on signal timing, seek the signal records. That is how the disputed sequence can be tested.
A wrong name can be raised through the agency's correction process. A disagreement with its fault opinion may require independent evidence. Neither a correction request nor an unanswered records request should be allowed to carry the case past a filing deadline. Keep those legal dates separately.
Questions clients often ask
Is a citation proof that I win
No. A citation does not supply all the proof of responsibility, causation and damages needed in a civil case. Counsel must also evaluate whether the citation and its disposition may be used and, if so, how.
Can I pursue a claim without a report
Possibly. The claim may be proved through witnesses, photos, recordings or other reliable evidence. Without a report, there may be more investigative work, but that absence alone doesn't defeat the claim.
Should I argue with a witness about the report
No. Give counsel the witness's details and preserve existing messages. Let the witness give an independent account without pressure to agree with you.
Separate the report from each statement inside it
For each important entry, identify the source. The officer may have measured skid marks personally, while the green-light account came from a driver. A contributing-factor box doesn't become a supported engineering calculation merely because it's on the same page. Rules 803(8), 805 and 901 address public records, hearsay within hearsay and authentication, respectively.
Use the rule that applies to the actual proceeding; civil and criminal qualifications differ. For a passage in dispute, identify why it is offered, its foundation and any applicable exception. The judge may allow part of the report without allowing all of it.
Ask how the officer reached the particular opinion. Training and experience may support one subject without qualifying the officer to calculate speed. Check measurements, methods and inputs, including statements that may be inaccurate. Rule 702 concerns the subject the witness will actually address.
Request a complete source inventory
A records clerk needs enough to find the event. Supply the date, approximate time, address or intersection, names, report number and investigating unit. Ask specifically about photographs, body and vehicle cameras, audio, dispatch calls, witness material, diagrams and supplements. Find out whether a reconstruction unit assisted. Asking for a complete report may get you only the form.
When an agency withholds a record:
- Keep its written response and stated reason, such as an open investigation or a confidentiality restriction.
- Ask counsel to review that reason.
- Have counsel assess whether public-information procedures, discovery in a lawsuit, or another available route fits the request.
- Continue tracking deadlines while access is disputed.
Public-information requests and lawsuit discovery serve different purposes. A denial through one procedure does not necessarily decide the other.
Don't wait for an access decision before asking that the material be kept. Identify who holds it and the applicable retention schedule. Retention periods can differ between recordings. Retain requests, replies and follow-up so a later motion can describe what was sought and why.
Interview the officer before treating a diagram as measured evidence
For the diagram, ask the officer:
- When did the officer arrive, and had the cars moved?
- Who identified the impact location?
- Which distances were actually measured?
A sketch based on accounts may not establish scale, sight distance or lane width. Give those limits to the reconstructionist and identify them on any resulting illustration.
A witness's words may have been shortened in the officer's notes. Find out whether the person saw impact, spoke separately from other witnesses or used an interpreter. Was there a recording, signature or only a summary? Use open questions when seeking the witness's own recollection.
Lighting, debris, contamination on the road and the emergency response may be facts the officer can describe directly. Ask about them. They may be useful without requiring a broad opinion about fault or a fight over specialized qualifications.
Cross-examination should test sources rather than attack the badge
Build the officer’s examination around the work performed:
- Arrival time and conditions on arrival.
- Accounts that conflicted with one another.
- Recordings reviewed before the report was written.
- The source of the particular conclusion in dispute.
- Later information and whether it changed that conclusion.
A limit in the investigation does not imply misconduct. Apply the same scrutiny to a favorable report: an overlooked witness or an assumption may give the defense a strong challenge. Develop independent proof so the case can still be explained if the judge excludes part of the report.
Identify the disputed fact a citation, arrest or allegation would prove. Under Rules 401 and 403, address relevance and the risks of confusion or unfair prejudice. Using it just to make the driver look bad is not enough. Consider whether another source proves the fact more clearly.
Hypothetical correction and litigation sequence
Imagine that the cars have been moved before the officer gets there. The report puts travel in the wrong lane. A store video and marks on the pavement support another location. In this hypothetical, counsel can ask for that particular correction and attach the support. The evidence also needs preservation and authentication for litigation; the agency need not be asked to decide the lawsuit.
An unchanged report does not end the hypothetical lane dispute. At deposition, counsel can ask who supplied the lane information and what the officer lacked when writing it. The trial evidence may establish a different path and explain the discrepancy. The sequence can be proved without first obtaining an amended form.
Give the firm the precise entry and the evidence supporting your account. Don't confront another driver or give up solely because the report is unfavorable. Aaron Herbert's trial preparation includes identifying the witnesses, records and foundations needed to put that explanation before the court.
Distinguish crash reports from the full police investigation
A TxDOT request gets the qualifying crash report, not necessarily the investigating agency’s full file. For photographs, body-camera or dashcam footage, dispatch records, diagrams, witness statements and field notes, identify what the agency separately holds. Start with TxDOT crash records and follow up with the investigating agency.
Mark errors and unanswered questions about the time, place, vehicles, witnesses and movements. For the officer's account, distinguish firsthand observations, later investigation and an illustrative sketch.
Even an inadmissible passage can point to someone worth interviewing. Follow the source of a statement inside the report. Whether it helps the investigation and whether a court can admit it are separate questions.
Write out the disputed entry and attach the support for your account. A mistaken identity and a disputed fault assessment are different problems. No one can promise an amendment or a particular liability result.
Authenticate video that appears to contradict the report. Establish the signal sequence and consider what each driver could reasonably perceive before concluding that entry followed a signal change.
Send counsel the report, witness information and supporting documents. Keep what people actually said. Arguing with the other driver or pressing a witness to agree with you can make the evidence less reliable.
Use video with its limitations in view
The camera may not show the driver's view. Its angle, lens, exposure, frame rate and obstructions can affect the image, and intervals may be missing. Video can establish movement or sequence while still needing technical interpretation.
To compare recordings from two cameras:
- Retain the footage before and after impact.
- Identify each camera’s time zone and any clock error.
- Find a shared reference event: one car passing the same fixed point in both views, for example.
- Have the reconstructionist explain how that event or other evidence supports synchronization.
Matching displayed timestamps do not, on their own, establish that two recordings show the same instant.
For the camera itself, establish:
- Its location and direction at the time of the crash.
- Whether recording was continuous or motion-triggered, and whether any frames were skipped.
- How the file was exported.
- Whether another camera showed the approach.
Footage of the approach can help even when the camera misses impact.
Before sharing a shortened clip:
- Secure the original recording.
- Identify the camera or account holder and the deletion schedule for counsel.
- Prevent new recordings from overwriting the memory card during preservation.
- Retain the original phone file. Repeatedly compressed copies can lose detail.
Before relying on footage in a demand, identify:
- The witness or other evidence that can authenticate it.
- Whether someone familiar with the recording system can supply that foundation.
- Any expert work needed for synchronization or measurements.
Label an animation as an illustration and disclose its assumptions. Keep it distinct from the original camera recording.
Watch the unfavorable part as closely as the favorable one. Your vehicle's movement might have an explanation, affect fault or belong to another event. Resolve that question before building a presentation or advising about settlement.
Reconstruct the sequence before allocating fault
Work forward from the approach: perception, reaction, maneuver, first impact, later impacts and final positions. A car's resting place may be far from impact because it rotated, was pushed, moved in the emergency or was towed.
Take each approach in turn. Identify the controlling sign or signal, lane, intended turn, speed evidence and sight line. A driver's sincere memory of green should be checked against available signal records, independent witnesses and synchronized footage. A mistake in recollection is possible, and even a green signal leaves duties of reasonable care.
In a chain collision, a car that was stopped may have been pushed into the next one. Or an earlier maneuver may have started the sequence. Check both accounts against damage, debris, event data, witnesses and footage. Include the pieces that don't fit the first explanation.
What question needs an expert's answer? Timing and speed may call for reconstruction; a suspected component problem may call for an engineer. Ask what evidence the expert still needs. You should also know which uncertainties would remain even after that work.
Tell the client which facts are established, which records or inspections remain outstanding and how those gaps affect the next decision. The work may involve several custodians and tests of different assumptions.
For a hypothetical left turn across another car, examine permission to turn, the approaching car's speed, visibility and both drivers' opportunities to avoid contact. The label left-turn accident does not answer those questions. More than one driver's conduct may be relevant.
Plan admissibility and trial presentation before the courtroom
An exhibit needs a route into evidence. Work through each important item with counsel: who can identify it, what foundation does it need, and is notice required? Consider business-record requirements, expert issues and the objection the other side is likely to make. A useful attachment to a demand letter may need more preparation before a jury can see it. The Texas Rules of Evidence govern those courtroom questions.
Record the ruling, distinguishing a motion in limine from evidentiary exclusion. A pretrial discussion may not preserve a later issue. Make any necessary objection or offer of proof when required.
Assign each witness the facts they can establish, whether the event, medical causation or a functional change. Avoid repetition while retaining the facts needed for the jury's questions.
Check each trial display against its supporting evidence:
- Timeline: mark uncertain dates as uncertain.
- Animation: identify the sources and assumptions.
- Medical illustration: confirm support for the diagnosis shown.
Do not let a polished display suggest that an unproved fact has been established.
Tell your lawyer beforehand about sensitive records or subjects you find difficult to discuss. On the stand, take time to hear the question. Give an accurate answer, and say when you don't remember. Testimony preparation should help you tell the truth clearly without leaving you to recite a script.
Counsel must connect the damages evidence to the questions the jury will actually answer. That includes reviewing the requested instructions, guarding against double counting and making the objections needed to preserve an issue. A persuasive account of the injury still needs proof of the required elements and a proper jury submission.
How specialized trial preparation can help your claim
A disputed report gives the firm several jobs: preserve its sources, test the insurer's position, and determine what can actually be proved. This work may reveal a weakness before settlement. If the case goes to trial, it may provide admissible evidence.
Aaron A. Herbert is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Read about his substantial jury-trial experience in the firm’s published background. Its case results describe significant recoveries. Consider how those credentials relate to the work your case needs. Prior outcomes are not a guarantee; facts, evidence, law and recovery sources differ.
If you are considering hiring counsel after a Texas crash, request a free consultation with The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert PC or call 214 200 4878. Tell the office about the issue addressed in this article and any approaching deadline. Ask who would handle the case, what work is needed, and how fees and expenses are addressed before signing an agreement.
Attorneys and referral partners may use the contact page to discuss a case. Identify approaching procedural dates and get the firm's acceptance before relying on a transfer of responsibility. Representation begins only after acceptance.
Read the Texas car accident claims and litigation guide or return to the Texas Car Accident Knowledge Hub for related resources.
Related car accident resources
- Preserving Dashcam Video and Vehicle Data After a Texas Crash
- Fault in Texas Multi Vehicle and Intersection Crashes
- Texas Car Accident Lawsuit and Trial Preparation (Coming soon)
Legal sources
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure effective October 1, 2026.
This article provides general information about Texas law. Application depends on the facts, policy, court orders, and law governing the particular claim. Hypothetical examples are illustrations rather than reported firm cases.
ABOUT THE ATTORNEY
Aaron A. Herbert
Founding Attorney
Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law
Aaron founded The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert in 2010 to focus on developing each client's case and seeking its maximum value. For over a decade, he has represented people seriously injured in major accidents and industrial catastrophes, pursuing trial verdicts and settlements while working to reduce the stress of litigation.
Education
- Texas A&M University · B.S., Criminal Justice, 1999
- University of Oklahoma College of Law · J.D., 2002; graduated in the top of his class
Trial experience & approach
Aaron earned numerous jury verdicts at boutique personal injury litigation firms. According to his biography, he spent a year as the top-earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently appeared in verdict searches as having one of the highest numbers of trial wins in Texas. At another Dallas personal injury firm, he moved from managing pre-litigation attorney to managing litigation attorney over seven years as the firm grew into one of Dallas's largest personal injury firms.
His biography describes a reputation as one of America's most aggressive trial lawyers, with noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries and substantial pretrial settlements. Most of those settlements included confidentiality agreements requested by the defense. Aaron has said the recoveries were justified by the injuries and losses involved, which no amount of money could make someone choose to experience.
His approach combines passion, preparation, persistence and courtroom imagination. He believes a well-supported, engaged and motivated team working cooperatively helps deliver strong representation, with the goal of achieving the best possible result for every client.
Dallas roots, military service & publication
Born and raised in Dallas, Aaron enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. He completed his university and law degrees after his military service and became a lifelong Sooners football fan in law school.
Publication: “Litigating Dog Bite Cases,” Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas, 2009.
Professional affiliations & recognition
Professional affiliations and recognition listed in Aaron’s biography:
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now American Association for Justice)
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- The National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Trial experience & approach
Aaron earned numerous jury verdicts at boutique personal injury litigation firms. According to his biography, he spent a year as the top-earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently appeared in verdict searches as having one of the highest numbers of trial wins in Texas. At another Dallas personal injury firm, he moved from managing pre-litigation attorney to managing litigation attorney over seven years as the firm grew into one of Dallas's largest personal injury firms.
His biography describes a reputation as one of America's most aggressive trial lawyers, with noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries and substantial pretrial settlements. Most of those settlements included confidentiality agreements requested by the defense. Aaron has said the recoveries were justified by the injuries and losses involved, which no amount of money could make someone choose to experience.
His approach combines passion, preparation, persistence and courtroom imagination. He believes a well-supported, engaged and motivated team working cooperatively helps deliver strong representation, with the goal of achieving the best possible result for every client.
Dallas roots, military service & publication
Born and raised in Dallas, Aaron enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. He completed his university and law degrees after his military service and became a lifelong Sooners football fan in law school.
Publication: “Litigating Dog Bite Cases,” Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas, 2009.
Professional affiliations & recognition
Professional affiliations and recognition listed in Aaron’s biography:
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now American Association for Justice)
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- The National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers