United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review After Erlinger for ACCA “Different-Occasions” Element

Introduction

In United States v. Michael Hinds, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confronted a trio of recurring criminal-procedure questions: (1) when state officers may rely on federal marijuana law to justify a warrantless automobile search; (2) when the Government’s failure to disclose impeachment material about a non-testifying officer is material under Brady and Giglio; and (3) how to treat an Erlinger error—i.e., the failure to submit the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “different occasions” requirement to the jury—on appellate review.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Michael Hinds’s convictions and 20-year sentence, holding that:

The officers had probable cause to search the vehicle based on federal marijuana law, notwithstanding Michigan’s medical-marijuana regime and the officers’ initial reference to state law.
The suppressed internal-affairs report concerning a non-testifying officer was not material for Brady/Giglio purposes.
The Erlinger error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of uncontested prior-conviction information showing the offenses occurred on different occasions.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ritz affirmed the district court’s denial of Hinds’s suppression motion and new-trial motion, and upheld the ACCA-enhanced sentence. The court:

Applied the automobile exception, finding probable cause under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”).
Found no material Brady violation because the undisclosed disciplinary report would not likely have altered the verdict.
Recognized that, after Erlinger v. United States, a jury must decide the ACCA “different occasions” element, but held the omitted submission harmless since any reasonable jury would have found the occasions distinct.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) – provided the “fair probability” standard for probable cause.
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) – made officers’ subjective intent irrelevant to the probable-cause inquiry.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) – confirmed federal authority to criminalize marijuana possession regardless of state medical-marijuana laws.
United States v. Whitlow, 134 F.4th 914 (6th Cir. 2025) – held that the Fourth Amendment does not bar state officers from enforcing federal drug law in the absence of express congressional prohibition; squarely controlled this case’s search analysis.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) & Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) – required disclosure of favorable and material evidence.
Turner v. United States, 582 U.S. 313 (2017) – articulated the “reasonable probability of a different result” materiality test.
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) – held that a jury must find ACCA’s “different occasions” element beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624 (6th Cir. 2024); United States v. Thomas, 142 F.4th 412 (6th Cir. 2025); United States v. Robinson, 133 F.4th 712 (6th Cir. 2025) – established the Sixth Circuit’s post-Erlinger harmless-error framework, which the panel extended here.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Automobile Search

The panel emphasized objective facts: officers observed Hinds rolling a marijuana joint inside a vehicle. Because possession of marijuana remains a federal offense under the CSA, there was a “fair probability” that further contraband would be found. Under Whitlow, state officers may enforce federal drug laws absent congressional prohibition; Michigan law was silent. Applying Devenpeck, the court rejected Hinds’s argument that the search was invalid because the officers initially cited state law—their subjective reasoning was immaterial so long as objective probable cause existed.

2. Suppressed Disciplinary Report

All parties agreed the undisclosed internal-affairs report was favorable impeachment material, but the panel held it was not “material” because:

Officer Bush did not testify; the Government called other officers.
Extensive independent evidence (body-cam footage, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence) overwhelmingly established guilt.
The report suggested misconduct in an unrelated high-speed chase, not evidence-tampering in Hinds’s case.

Consequently, disclosure would not have produced a reasonable probability of acquittal, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

3. ACCA “Different-Occasions” Harmless Error

Post-Erlinger, failure to submit the “different occasions” question to a jury is constitutional error. The Sixth Circuit borrowed its harmless-error methodology from Campbell, Thomas, and Robinson, asking whether any reasonable jury would necessarily find separate occasions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key factors:

Temporal Separation: Armed robbery (2001) preceded drug offenses (2015, 2016) by years; the two drug offenses were eleven months apart.
Geographic & Factual Differences: Distinct municipalities (Detroit, Eastpointe, Warren) and different controlled substances (cocaine/marijuana vs. heroin).
Intervening Sentencing Event: Hinds was sentenced for the 2015 drug offense before committing the 2016 offense.

The uncontested Presentence Report provided reliable dates and offense details; Hinds mounted no factual challenge. Accordingly, the panel concluded the error was harmless and the 20-year ACCA minimum stood.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

Harmless-Error Jurisprudence After Erlinger: The decision reinforces that appellate courts may affirm ACCA sentences despite Erlinger errors when record evidence of separate occasions is uncontested and overwhelming. Litigants should anticipate rigorous harmless-error analysis rather than automatic remands.
State Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Law: By applying Whitlow to a medical-marijuana defendant, the case signals that licensed state activity does not negate federal probable cause where the CSA remains violated, especially inside vehicles.
Scope of Brady/Giglio For Non-Testifying Officers: The opinion suggests that impeachment material on witnesses who do not take the stand will rarely be deemed material, curbing expansive Brady arguments predicated on mere presence at the scene.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Automobile Exception: A longstanding Fourth Amendment doctrine permitting warrantless vehicle searches when officers have probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime, because vehicles are mobile and occupants have reduced privacy expectations.
Probable Cause: Not certainty, but a “fair probability” based on objective facts that evidence of a crime will be found.
Brady Material: Any evidence favorable to the defendant that is “material” to guilt or punishment must be disclosed by the prosecution. Evidence is “material” if it could reasonably affect the outcome.
ACCA & “Different Occasions”: Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, a §922(g) felon with three prior “violent felony” or “serious drug offense” convictions committed on separate occasions faces a 15-year minimum. Erlinger requires a jury to decide whether the prior crimes were distinct events.
Harmless Error: Even constitutional errors can be excused if an appellate court finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect the verdict or sentence.

Conclusion

United States v. Hinds stands out chiefly for its post-Erlinger analysis: the Sixth Circuit fleshes out how harmless-error review operates when the ACCA “different-occasions” element is mistakenly withheld from the jury. The decision also reaffirms that federal marijuana prohibition can supply probable cause for vehicle searches by state officers and narrows the practical reach of Brady where suppressed impeachment evidence concerns a non-testifying witness.

Practitioners should heed three overarching lessons:

Objective federal law violations suffice for probable cause, regardless of state licensure regimes or officers’ subjective motives.
Failure to disclose derogatory information about sidelined witnesses is unlikely to upend a conviction absent a tight link to contested trial issues.
Post-Erlinger, defendants must contest the factual basis of their prior convictions early and vigorously; otherwise, courts may sustain ACCA sentences via harmless-error review.

Collectively, these holdings will influence search-and-seizure litigation, prosecutorial disclosure duties, and ACCA sentencing practice throughout the Sixth Circuit and potentially beyond.