“Residual Probable Cause” After Florida’s Hemp Reform:
A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Bain (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

United States v. Deondre Bain, No. 24-10480, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on 20 August 2025, addresses two hot-button criminal-procedure questions in the post-Bruen/Rahimi landscape:

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession) remains constitutional after the Supreme Court’s recent Second-Amendment jurisprudence, and
2. How the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause standard applies to automobile searches in Florida following the state’s legalization of hemp and partial legalization of marijuana.

Deondre Bain, a previously convicted felon, was stopped by Miami Gardens police in January 2023. Officers recovered a firearm converted to a fully automatic machine gun and marijuana residue from his SUV. Bain moved to suppress the evidence and to dismiss the felon-in-possession count on Second Amendment grounds. The district court denied both motions, and a jury convicted Bain on two counts: possession of a firearm/ammunition by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession of a machine gun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1)). This appeal followed.

Summary of the Judgment

• Second Amendment Claim. The Eleventh Circuit summarily rejected Bain’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) as foreclosed by its fresh precedent in United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025). Dubois held that nothing in Bruen (2022) or Rahimi (2024) abrogates the circuit’s earlier decision in United States v. Rozier upholding the statute.
• Fourth Amendment Claim. The court affirmed denial of the suppression motion. It held that backing out of a handicap-parking space without visible authorization provided reasonable suspicion for the stop, and that the totality of circumstances—Bain’s criminal history, gang affiliation, furtive gestures, failure to show his hands, and the odor/appearance of marijuana—established probable cause for a warrantless automobile search.
• Outcome. Convictions affirmed; 168-month sentence stands.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025) – Most recent circuit authority upholding § 922(g)(1). The panel relied on Dubois to dispose of the Second-Amendment challenge in a single paragraph, signalling the stabilisation of felon-in-possession law post-Bruen.
2. United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) – Original circuit precedent sustaining § 922(g)(1). Rozier supplies the analytical framework that Dubois reaffirmed.
3. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) & United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) – Supreme Court cases redefining the Second-Amendment test. Bain relied on them; the Eleventh Circuit distinguished them.
4. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) – Articulate the objective standard for traffic stops; used to validate the initial seizure.
5. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) – Permits objectively reasonable mistakes of law or fact. Applied to license-plate and disabled-parking issues.
6. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – Clarifies that officers need only “substantial chance” of criminality for probable cause.
7. State v. Diaz, 395 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) – Florida authority showing temporary occupation of a handicap space can constitute a violation and thus probable cause.

Legal Reasoning

1. Second Amendment

The panel followed a straightforward hierarchical approach:

• Binding circuit precedent (Dubois/Rozier) controls unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the en-banc Eleventh Circuit.
• Bruen and Rahimi did not “abrogate” Rozier because neither decision explicitly or implicitly addressed felon disarmament.
• Therefore, § 922(g)(1) remains good law within the Eleventh Circuit.

2. Fourth Amendment – Stop

Reasonable suspicion hinged chiefly on the perceived handicap-parking violation (Fla. Stat. § 316.1955). Even though officers arrived only in time to see the SUV leaving the space, the court held that:

• The act of backing out permits an inference the vehicle was unlawfully “stopped or parked” there moments earlier.
• Objective reasonableness trumps subjective motives (Whren), so the officers’ alleged prior knowledge of Bain’s gun history is irrelevant.

3. Fourth Amendment – Search

The search was justified under the automobile exception. Key factors cumulatively created probable cause:

1. Bain’s criminal and gang history (known to officers).
2. Furtive movements and delayed hand compliance.
3. Odor of marijuana and visible “shake” on seats/floor.
4. Ajar cupholder (revealed during search).

The opinion is notable for addressing Florida’s 2019 hemp statute (see Fla. Stat. § 581.217) and 2016 medical-marijuana amendment (id. § 381.986). The court accepted the district judge’s view that officers may still “assume marijuana is illegal” absent counter-indicia (e.g., a medical card) and that cross-designation as federal agents empowers them to enforce federal drug law, under which any marijuana remains contraband.

Impact of the Decision

• Second-Amendment Litigation. Bain further entrenches the Eleventh Circuit’s stance that felon dispossession statutes survive Bruen, reducing the odds of successful facial challenges until the Supreme Court speaks directly.
• Search-and-Seizure Practice in Hemp-Legal States. The most consequential aspect is the court’s articulation of “residual probable cause.” Despite hemp’s indistinguishability from marijuana, officers may still rely on the odor/appearance of marijuana in combination with other suspicious facts. This diverges from some state-court trends (e.g., Oregon, Colorado) that require more concrete evidence post-hemp reform.
• Traffic-Stop Scope. The ruling confirms that even transient misuse of a handicap space can legitimize a stop, broadening police discretion in parking-lot encounters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Non-Argument Calendar

A subset of appellate cases decided without oral argument because the court views the legal issues as straightforward.

Reasonable Suspicion

A minimal, articulable belief that criminal activity is afoot—less than probable cause but more than a hunch.

Probable Cause

Facts sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that evidence of a crime will be found.

Automobile Exception

Allows warrantless searches of vehicles if they are readily mobile and officers have probable cause.

Objective Test vs. Subjective Motive

Court assesses whether facts support a stop/search regardless of an officer’s hidden intentions.

Felon-in-Possession Statute (§ 922(g)(1))

Federal law barring firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year.

Conclusion

United States v. Bain cements two doctrinal points in the Eleventh Circuit:

1. Section 922(g)(1) survives contemporary Second-Amendment scrutiny until the Supreme Court holds otherwise.
2. Post-hemp, officers may still rely on marijuana odor and appearance as part of a “totality-of-circumstances” probable-cause calculus, especially when accompanied by other incriminating factors.

Practitioners should note Bain’s practical lessons: even fleeting parking-lot infractions can justify a stop; marijuana odor retains evidentiary value; and subjective police motives are irrelevant if objective facts satisfy constitutional tests. Going forward, suppression challenges founded solely on hemp legalization or medical-marijuana statutes will face an uphill battle in the Eleventh Circuit unless either state law or the Supreme Court narrows the automobile-search doctrine.