Daniel Huertas challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after officers impounded his vehicle and conducted what they characterized as an inventory search. He argued that the search was pretextual and that the impoundment was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the suppression order and remanded because the trial court had not made the factual findings necessary to resolve the detective’s credibility and the existence and application of an unwritten department policy concerning body-camera footage and inventory procedures. The appellate court directed the trial court to apply the correct framework and determine the disputed facts before ruling on suppression.