Skip to main content

“Let’s Go to the Tape!” When a District Court Can Review Video in Support of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

Donald, a white man with blond hair, wears a white shirt, yellow tie with beige squares, and a black suit.
Donald R. Pocock

Anyone who survived Civ Pro knows that on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court is generally confined to the four corners of the complaint and any documents attached to or incorporated into it. Materials beyond the complaint are off-limits. Considering them risks converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

The Fourth Circuit recognizes narrow exceptions to this rule. A court may consider: (1) documents that are integral to the complaint and explicitly relied upon in it, provided their authenticity is unchallenged; (2) matters of public record subject to judicial notice, construed favorably to the plaintiff; and (3) under the video-contradiction exception articulated in Doriety for Est. of Crenshaw v. Sletten, 109 F.4th 670, 679–80 (4th Cir. 2024), a video recording that is integral to the complaint and whose authenticity is unchallenged, to the extent the footage “clearly depicts a set of facts contrary to those alleged in the complaint” or “blatantly contradicts” the plaintiff’s allegations, rendering them implausible. That standard is “a very difficult one to satisfy,” requiring that the plaintiff’s version be “utterly discredited.” Doriety for Est. of Crenshaw, 109 F.4th at 679 (quoting Lewis v. Caraballo, 98 F.4th 521, 529 (4th Cir. 2024)).

In Spencer v. Glaser, No. 25-1425, 2026 WL 2235303 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), the Fourth Circuit addressed head-on how much work body-camera footage can do at the pleading stage. Sylvester Selby was fatally shot by a Dare County deputy in Manteo, North Carolina. The administrator of his estate, Legacy Spencer, alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force and derivative state-law claims. The defendants asserted that the complaint told one story, but the body-camera footage told another, and submitted video in support of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The district court relied heavily on the recordings and dismissed the case. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the specific portions the district court relied upon did not “clearly depict” or “blatantly contradict” her allegations under the Doriety standard.

The Fourth Circuit agreed that the district court “crossed the line established in Doriety” in places. For example, the district court found that “uneven terrain caused [the deputies] to lose [their] footing and stumble as they attempted to retreat.” But the video did not clearly depict that the terrain was uneven, that the deputies stumbled, or that any uneven terrain caused them to stumble. That finding required inference and interpretation — precisely what the narrow exception does not permit. The court reinforced that even when a video is properly before the court, it cannot be used to draw contested inferences or resolve ambiguities in the defendant’s favor. See Bermeo v. Andis, 163 F.4th 87 (4th Cir. 2025) (rejecting a credibility determination drawn from a recording); Alexander v. Connor, 105 F.4th 174 (4th Cir. 2024) (cautioning against misuse of the video-contradiction exception).

Despite the district court’s overreach on some of its video-based findings, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Conducting de novo review, the Fourth Circuit identified two portions of the footage that did blatantly contradict the complaint’s allegations. First, Selby did not, as alleged in the complaint, calmly surrender with his arms raised. Rather, he leapt down the porch steps with a knife still in hand and moved toward the deputies. Second, after being shot the first time, Selby lunged toward Deputy Glaser before the second and third shots, directly contradicting the allegation that he “did not lunge in the direction of” the deputies. Based on these observations, the Fourth Circuit held that the force was objectively reasonable and merited dismissal. The derivative state-law claims fell with the federal claims.

Practical Takeaways

  • When drafting a complaint: Be precise. If a recording integral to your claims exists, assume a court will use it to test plausibility. Describe events with care and note ambiguities in the recording rather than overstating what occurred.
  • When opposing a motion to dismiss that relies on video: Do not concede integrality or authenticity if there is a good-faith basis to dispute them. Press the “very difficult” / “utterly discredited” standard aggressively. Ambiguous, partial or poor-quality footage should not support dismissal. See Lewis, 98 F.4th at 529 (declining to treat unclear video as dispositive).
  • When moving to dismiss: Submit the recording with your motion and identify with pinpoint specificity the portions that blatantly contradict each challenged allegation of the complaint. Generic reliance on a video is unlikely to satisfy the Doriety.
  • When defending a dismissal on appeal: Focus on outcome-determinative findings. Identify each specific factual finding the district court drew from the recording. Distinguish findings that are clearly and unambiguously depicted from those requiring inference or interpretation. Spencer teaches that even if the district court overstepped on some video-based conclusions, the appellate court will affirm if other properly considered footage independently supports dismissal.

Don Pocock is a former chair of the Litigation Section and a shareholder at Baker Donelson in Winston-Salem.