The Texas Third Court of Appeals has ruled that Travis County prosecutors may proceed with core elements of their tampering with evidence and conspiracy case against former Williamson County Sheriff Robert Chody and former Assistant County Attorney Jason Nassour. The ruling overturns a trial court order that had barred the State from presenting key testimony and effectively cut off part of its case related to the 2019 in-custody death of Javier Ambler.

The appeals court found that the trial court erroneously interpreted the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (PPA) in a way that preempted portions of Texas’s tampering law and wrongfully excluded evidence related to the release of unaired Live PD footage.

The Incident and the Recordings

According to the court’s opinion, on the night of March 27, 2019, Live PD producer Ruby Tarzian and cameramen James Moriarty and Colin Mika were embedded with Williamson County Sheriff’s deputies. They were filming for a future segment of the A&E show. The crew was split between patrol units driven by Deputies James “JJ” Johnson and Zachary Camden. Both deputies were outfitted with microphones, and GoPro cameras were mounted on the windshields of their vehicles. Neither deputy wore a body camera.

At approximately 1:23 a.m. on March 28, 2019, Deputy Johnson attempted to stop a vehicle for failing to dim its high beams. The driver did not stop. Johnson and then Camden engaged in a vehicle pursuit that concluded in Travis County at around 1:45 a.m., when the driver—identified as Javier Ambler Jr.—crashed his vehicle. A physical struggle occurred as deputies attempted to restrain Ambler, during which he became unresponsive.

Moriarty and Mika recorded the incident on handheld cameras. After the struggle, Moriarty placed his camera and gear in Deputy Camden’s patrol vehicle, which was subsequently cordoned off as part of a secure crime scene. Mika retained his camera.

Later that morning, both Chody and Nassour arrived at the scene. A deputy initially told the Live PD crew they could not retrieve Moriarty’s camera, but shortly after 3:00 a.m., following discussions between Chody and Nassour, a deputy escorted Moriarty to retrieve the camera equipment. The crew left the scene with the footage.

By noon that day, the footage was sent via FedEx to Big Fish Entertainment’s headquarters in New York. In June 2019, the company confirmed to Travis County prosecutors that the footage had been destroyed in accordance with a 30-day “destruction provision” in its contract with the county.

The Indictments

The State later charged Chody and Nassour with tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy to tamper, alleging that they knowingly concealed or facilitated the destruction of footage with intent to impair its availability as evidence in Ambler’s death investigation. The State’s theory is that by allowing the Live PD crew to leave the crime scene with the recordings—knowing the recordings were subject to contractual destruction—they contributed to the permanent loss of key evidence.

Among the overt acts listed in the indictments were:

• Allowing the footage to be taken from a secured crime scene, and

• Permitting Moriarty to retrieve the camera equipment from Deputy Camden’s patrol vehicle.

The Privacy Protection Act Argument

Chody’s defense moved to quash the indictments and exclude related evidence, arguing that the federal Privacy Protection Act (PPA) prohibited law enforcement from seizing documentary materials intended for publication—such as news footage—without a subpoena or court order. The trial court agreed in part and issued an order barring the State from presenting evidence that Chody or Nassour could have legally seized or withheld the footage.

The State appealed, arguing that the order had the effect of dismissing key portions of the indictment and blocking its ability to prove material facts at trial.

Appeals Court: Trial Court Misapplied Federal Law

In a published opinion, the Third Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Writing for the court, Justice Rosa Lopez Theofanis concluded that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings had a direct and final effect on the prosecution’s ability to proceed—essentially dismissing part of the case—and were therefore subject to appellate review.

The court also rejected the idea that the PPA preempted state criminal law in this context. The opinion emphasized that:

• The PPA regulates unlawful search or seizure of documentary materials from those involved in public dissemination—not what happens when law enforcement officials allow evidence to be removed from a secure crime scene.

• The footage was already inside a patrol vehicle secured as evidence. No search or seizure occurred.

• The PPA itself specifies that evidence is not inadmissible in court simply due to a violation of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(e)).

• There is no textual basis in the PPA to bar prosecution under Texas Penal Code §§ 37.09 or 15.02 for tampering or conspiracy to tamper.

“The PPA does not preempt the prosecution of Nassour or Chody for tampering or conspiracy,” the court concluded. “State criminal prosecutions of government officers in connection with tampering with evidence do not create an obstacle, for federal preemption purposes, to the objectives of protecting those engaged in information dissemination from government intrusion.”

Procedural History and Next Steps

The appellate ruling revives core parts of the State’s case and returns the matter to the 299th District Court in Travis County for further proceedings. The jury had already been sworn at the time of the trial court’s ruling, but the State moved to stay proceedings and filed its appeal before jeopardy attached.

Chody and Nassour’s legal teams had argued that because parts of the indictment remained untouched, the prosecution could still proceed. But the appellate court held that prosecutors are entitled to stand on their charging instruments and not be forced to amend their theory of the case.

Conclusion

With Friday’s decision, state prosecutors regain the ability to present their central narrative to a jury—that Chody and Nassour knowingly enabled the destruction of video footage tied to a fatal use-of-force incident. The trial court must now allow evidence previously excluded based on the PPA, and trial proceedings are expected to resume.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..

Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.  

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---