Officer Observation and Contemporaneous Statements Can Establish Probable Cause Despite Incomplete Video: Sixth Circuit Rejects Pretext-as-Credibility Challenge in United States v. Vann

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Sixth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in United States v. Johnny Steven Vann (No. 24-3315, decided May 8, 2025), affirming the denial of a motion to suppress following a highway stop that led to the discovery of large quantities of controlled substances. The case turns on a focused Fourth Amendment question: whether an officer had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop based on his observation of a turn-signal violation that was not captured on dash camera due to an obstructed view.

The defendant, Johnny Vann, argued that the officer’s testimony was not credible because the dash camera did not capture the alleged violation and because, in his view, ancillary facts suggested a pretextual stop. The district court credited the officer’s testimony that he had a clear vantage point from the driver’s position and that Vann failed to signal a lane change. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the record did not leave it with a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court erred in its credibility finding, and reiterating that an observed traffic violation supplies probable cause regardless of an officer’s subjective intent.

Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit (Judge Nalbandian, joined by Judges Stranch and Bush) affirmed the district court’s denial of Vann’s motion to suppress. The court held that:

The officer had probable cause to stop Vann based on his observation that Vann changed lanes without using a turn signal, a violation of Ohio law.
The absence of dash-camera footage of the turn signal did not undermine the officer’s observation because the camera’s view was obstructed by an intervening SUV; from the driver’s vantage point, the officer credibly testified he could see the turn signal and that it was inactive.
The defendant’s “pretext-as-credibility” challenge failed: alleged inconsistencies in testimony, the officer’s failure to narrate violations on bodycam per a discretionary policy, and the later reference to a separate impeding-traffic violation in the written report did not render the officer’s testimony about the turn-signal violation incredible.
Because establishing probable cause for the stop on the turn-signal violation sufficed, the court did not reach whether a second asserted violation (slow driving in the left lane) could independently justify the stop when first articulated in a post-incident report.

With probable cause for the stop established, and with the defendant’s appellate challenge limited to the initial stop, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
The Supreme Court’s foundational rule: a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where an officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred; the officer’s subjective motives are irrelevant. The panel cites Whren via Sixth Circuit precedent to frame the objective probable-cause inquiry.
United States v. Lott, 954 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2020).
Reaffirms that observing a traffic-law violation provides probable cause and that subjective intent is irrelevant. Lott supplies the controlling Sixth Circuit articulation of Whren’s objective standard, central to rejecting Vann’s pretext argument.
United States v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013).
Recognizes automobiles as “effects” under the Fourth Amendment and applies probable-cause principles to traffic stops. It provides doctrinal scaffolding for the stop’s Fourth Amendment analysis.
United States v. Taylor, 121 F.4th 590 (6th Cir. 2024).
Sets the standard of review: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government when a suppression motion is denied. This standard is outcome-determinative here, as the core dispute is factual (credibility).
United States v. Rogers, 97 F.4th 1038 (6th Cir. 2024).
Defines clear error (“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”) and notes that the appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record. These points shape the deferential posture toward the district court’s credibility findings.

Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Framing the question and standard of review. The appellant’s sole argument challenges the factual basis for probable cause—specifically, whether the officer actually observed a turn-signal violation. Because the district court credited the officer’s testimony, the Sixth Circuit reviews that credibility determination for clear error, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government.
Reconciling the incomplete video with credible testimony. The dash camera did not capture the alleged violation due to an intervening SUV and the camera’s passenger-side vantage. The government supplemented the record with photographs illustrating the driver’s line-of-sight. The officer testified unequivocally that, from that vantage, he could see the turn signal and that it was inactive during the lane change. The officer also contemporaneously told Vann during the stop that he failed to signal. Taken together, the court found the district court did not clearly err in crediting the officer and concluding the violation occurred.
Rejecting the “pretext-as-credibility” challenge. The court addressed three credibility attacks:
- Alleged inconsistency about “abnormal” slowing near police. The officer distinguished ordinary slowing from Vann’s unusually slow speed relative to traffic and the officer’s observation of Vann’s startled demeanor. Even if there had been some inconsistency on this tangential point, it would not undermine the separate, unequivocal testimony about the turn-signal violation.
- Failure to narrate violations on body camera under OSHP policy. The policy is discretionary and practically difficult to implement (manual activation and a 90-second buffer). Failure to narrate, without more, does not imply malintent or undermine credibility.
- Second violation (impeding traffic) first appearing in the report. The district court acknowledged the video captured slow driving but declined to rely on that ground for probable cause, not because of credibility concerns but due to uncertainty whether a post hoc-articulated violation can justify the initial stop. The Sixth Circuit notes that issue was immaterial given the sufficiency of the turn-signal violation.

Doctrinally, the decision applies the objective probable-cause framework of Whren/Lott and emphasizes appellate deference to trial-level credibility findings under Taylor and Rogers. The core holding is pragmatic: an officer’s in-person observation, corroborated by contemporaneous statements and a plausible explanation for missing video, can sustain probable cause for a traffic stop.

Impact

Although unpublished and nonprecedential, Vann carries several practical and persuasive implications within the Sixth Circuit and beyond:

Officer observation can suffice without perfect video. The court accepts that dash-camera limitations (placement, occlusions by other vehicles) may prevent capture of a traffic violation. Where the officer’s vantage point differs and the officer credibly explains the discrepancy, testimony plus contemporaneous remarks to the driver may adequately establish probable cause.
Pretext remains irrelevant to probable cause, and thin credibility attacks will not prevail on appeal. Defendants may argue that subjective motivations bear on credibility, but absent concrete contradictions or internal inconsistencies on the key fact (the violation itself), such challenges rarely meet the clear-error threshold.
Internal policy noncompliance (when discretionary) carries limited weight. Failure to follow a discretionary recommendation—such as narrating observed violations—does not inherently undermine credibility. This signals that litigants should distinguish between mandatory policies (potentially probative) and discretionary best practices.
Unresolved question: post hoc-articulated violations. The district court expressed uncertainty whether a violation first articulated in a written report (and not told to the motorist at the roadside) can justify a stop. The Sixth Circuit did not reach the question. Future cases may explore when, if ever, newly articulated grounds can retroactively validate a stop, particularly where video objectively corroborates the alternate violation.
Practice pointers.
- For law enforcement: When safe, state the observed traffic violation to the motorist contemporaneously; note vantage points and obstructions on recording; promptly document observations in reports.
- For defense counsel: Probe the geometry of sightlines, timing of statements to dispatch and to the driver, and any contradictions between bodycam/dashcam and testimony. Where video truly contradicts testimony, emphasize the conflict; where video is merely incomplete, credibility attacks require stronger corroboration.
- For trial courts: Make explicit credibility findings and explain why video does or does not capture the key event. This record-building aids deferential appellate review.
Effect on marijuana-related searches. The panel recounts the officer’s detection of marijuana odor and a dispensary bag, which precipitated the vehicle search yielding other contraband. The appellate issue did not reach the search’s legality. Post-legalization developments can complicate marijuana-odor analyses in some jurisdictions, but those questions were not presented here and remain distinct from the initial-stop analysis.

Finally, while “Not Recommended for Publication,” such decisions can be cited for their persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and Sixth Circuit Rule 32.1. Vann thus provides a useful, fact-patterned illustration of how courts evaluate credibility and video evidence in routine traffic-stop litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause (Traffic Stops): A reasonable basis to believe a traffic law was violated. If an officer sees a violation, even a minor one, that is enough to stop the car. The officer’s subjective motives do not matter (Whren).
Pretext: When an officer uses a minor violation to justify a stop while actually investigating something else. Under Whren, this is legally acceptable so long as there was an objective violation. Defendants sometimes repackage pretext concerns as credibility challenges; success depends on showing the officer’s testimony is unreliable or contradicted, not merely that the officer was suspicious.
Clear Error Review: An appeals court defers to the trial judge’s factual findings—especially credibility determinations—unless it is firmly convinced a mistake occurred. This high bar often decides suppression appeals.
Video Evidence vs. Vantage: Camera angle and occlusions may limit what video shows. A missing or incomplete video is not the same as a contradictory video. When video is incomplete, courts may rely on credible testimony, especially if consistent with contemporaneous statements.
Internal Policy vs. Constitutional Standards: Police manuals may suggest best practices (like narrating observations), but discretionary policies do not set constitutional baselines. Noncompliance with discretionary guidance does not automatically taint a stop.

Conclusion

United States v. Vann reinforces two settled but practically significant principles in the traffic-stop context. First, an officer’s credible observation of a traffic violation, corroborated by contemporaneous statements and a plausible explanation for why the violation was not captured on video, suffices to establish probable cause. Second, generalized pretext arguments—recast as credibility challenges—will not succeed absent concrete contradictions or clear inconsistencies on the dispositive facts. The panel’s application of deferential clear-error review underscores the importance of trial-level credibility findings and careful record-building.

While the opinion is unpublished and limited to its facts, it clarifies how courts should treat incomplete video evidence and discretionary policy compliance when assessing probable cause for a stop. Its practical guidance for officers, litigants, and trial courts will likely influence how future suppression disputes over turn-signal and similar minor-violation stops are litigated and adjudicated in the Sixth Circuit.