United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review after Erlinger and Re-Affirms State Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Law

Introduction

In United States v. Michael Hinds, the Sixth Circuit confronted three recurring criminal-procedure questions:

• When may state police officers search a vehicle for federal marijuana violations?
• What is required to establish a Brady/Giglio violation when suppressed materials relate to a non-testifying officer?
• How does the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Erlinger v. United States apply on appellate review when the trial judge, rather than a jury, decided the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) “different occasions” element?

Michael Hinds, discovered with marijuana, crack cocaine, a scale, and a firearm, was convicted of (1) possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed after the district court (Eastern District of Michigan) denied his suppression and new-trial motions and imposed a 20-year mandatory minimum under ACCA.

Summary of the Judgment

• Search & seizure: The warrantless vehicle search satisfied the automobile exception because officers had probable cause under federal marijuana law; their subjective reliance on state law was irrelevant.
• Brady/Giglio: Nondisclosure of an internal disciplinary report on Officer Bush was “ethically questionable” but not material; therefore, no new trial was warranted.
• Sentencing: After Erlinger, a jury—not a judge—must decide whether prior convictions occurred on different occasions. The district court’s failure to seek a jury finding was error, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the convictions were clearly separate in time, place, and type.
• Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Hinds’s conviction and 20-year sentence.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel leaned heavily on Supreme Court and recent Sixth Circuit authority:

• Automobile Searches & Probable Cause
  • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) – totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause.
  • Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) – officer’s subjective motive is irrelevant if objective probable cause exists.
  • Carter v. Parris, 910 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2018) – sight of marijuana provides probable cause to search a car.
  • United States v. Whitlow, 134 F.4th 914 (6th Cir. 2025) – state officers may enforce federal marijuana law absent congressional or state prohibition.
• Disclosure Obligations
  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
  • Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
  • Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) – cumulative effect/materiality analysis.
• ACCA & Different Occasions
  • Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) – jury must decide “different occasions.”
  • Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) – interpretive framework for “occasions.”
  • Post-Erlinger harmless-error cases: United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624; United States v. Robinson, 133 F.4th 712; United States v. Thomas, 142 F.4th 412 (all 6th Cir. 2025).

2. Core Legal Reasoning

a. Warrantless Search of the Vehicle

• Objective facts: Officers observed Hinds actively rolling a marijuana joint in a smoke-filled, parked vehicle.
• Probable cause: Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Presence of any amount manifests probable cause to believe additional contraband is in the vehicle.
• Officer’s state mind immaterial: Even if the initiating officer cited the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) rather than federal law, Devenpeck forecloses suppression.
• State enforcement of federal law: Relying on Whitlow, the court held that state police can enforce federal marijuana laws unless Congress or the state legislature expressly forbids it—neither had.
• Appropriations rider argument rejected: The federal rider barring DOJ interference with state medical-marijuana programs did not apply because (1) no federal funds were shown to be used and (2) Hinds was not federally charged with marijuana offenses.

b. Suppressed Disciplinary Report & Brady/Giglio

• Undisputed favorability: The report portraying Officer Bush as dishonest is impeachment material.
• Materiality analysis:
  • Officer Bush did not testify; the prosecution elected to avoid using him precisely because of credibility concerns.
  • The remaining evidence—body-cam footage, testimony from Officer Harnphanich, physical items recovered—was overwhelming.
  • While jurors noticed Bush’s absence, speculation about his testimony is insufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict.
• Broader point: The opinion assumes, without deciding, that Brady obligations can extend to impeachment of non-testifying hearsay declarants, but holds the evidence immaterial on these facts.

c. ACCA Enhancement after Erlinger

• Error conceded: The trial judge, not a jury, found that Hinds’s three predicate felonies occurred on separate occasions—contrary to Erlinger.
• Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt:
  • The record (primarily the uncontested PSR) showed three distinct crimes: an armed robbery in 2001, a cocaine offense in 2015 in Eastpointe, and a heroin offense in 2016 in Warren.
  • Wide temporal gap (14 years) between the robbery and drug crimes; nearly a year between the drug crimes.
  • Different locations, drug types, arrests, and sentencing events dispelled any possibility of a single “criminal episode.”
• Doctrinal refinement: The panel synthesized its own post-Erlinger trilogy (Thomas, Robinson, Campbell) and reinforced that appellate courts may employ the entire record—including PSRs—so long as reliability is uncontested.

3. Impact of the Decision

• Fourth Amendment Practice: Re-affirms that state legalization regimes do not automatically constrain a probable-cause analysis under federal drug law; officers remain free to invoke the automobile exception when they see marijuana.
• Discovery Obligations: Signals that suppression of impeachment material relating to a non-testifying witness will rarely warrant a new trial absent an affirmative showing of prejudice.
• ACCA Litigation:
  • Provides a roadmap for harmless-error review post-Erlinger; prosecutors can sustain ACCA sentences if the record indisputably establishes separate occasions.
  • Encourages defense counsel to contest reliability or completeness of PSR descriptions if they wish to avoid harmless-error findings.
• Law-enforcement Policy: Validates joint state-federal drug enforcement even in jurisdictions with partial marijuana liberalization, unless explicitly curtailed by statute.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Automobile Exception: A long-standing doctrine permitting warrantless vehicle searches when officers have probable cause, owing to a car’s intrinsic mobility and reduced expectation of privacy.
• Probable Cause: A “fair probability” that evidence of crime is present—less than proof beyond reasonable doubt but more than mere suspicion.
• Brady Material: Any evidence favorable to the defense that, if disclosed, could reasonably affect the outcome. Includes impeachment evidence under Giglio.
• Materiality (in Brady context): Evidence is material only if its suppression undermines confidence in the verdict; it need not guarantee acquittal, merely create a reasonable probability of a different result.
• ACCA “Different Occasions” Element: To trigger ACCA’s 15-year minimum, the three predicate felonies must be temporally and spatially distinct or otherwise separate “episodes” of criminal conduct.
• Harmless-Error Review: An appellate doctrine that upholds a conviction or sentence despite error if the government proves the mistake did not influence the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

United States v. Hinds is not a blockbuster, but it solidifies two important post-2024 threads in Sixth Circuit jurisprudence:

1. State officers may rely on federal marijuana prohibitions to justify automobile searches, irrespective of state medical-marijuana defenses, unless either legislature or Congress clearly forbids such enforcement.
2. After Erlinger, the failure to send the ACCA “different occasions” question to a jury is not automatically reversible; harmless-error analysis will control, and a robust, uncontested record can sustain the sentence.

Defense practitioners should read Hinds as both a cautionary tale (challenging searches based solely on officer motive will likely fail) and a strategic reminder (to defeat harmless-error arguments, contest the reliability or specificity of predicate-offense records early and often). Prosecutors, conversely, are on notice that undisclosed impeachment material—even for non-testifying officers—must be weighed carefully, lest a stronger factual matrix invite reversal in the next case.

Overall, Hinds stitches together recent Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit authority into a coherent framework, further clarifying the contours of automobile searches, discovery obligations, and ACCA sentencing in the post-Erlinger landscape.