NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0109n.06
No. 24-1471
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 26, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) v. STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) REGINALD L. HUNTER, MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )
Before: BATCHELDER, LARSEN, and RITZ, Circuit Judges
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Reginald Hunter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder
for hire and murder for hire. He now appeals his conviction, arguing that state troopers conducted
an unlawful traffic stop that led to the discovery of incriminating evidence against him. For the
following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I.
While on patrol in Flint, Michigan state troopers Nicholas McCabe and Merik Whipple
stopped a Chevy Malibu. The Malibu drew the troopers’ attention when it made an abrupt turn,
which the officers believed was designed to evade the patrol car. The patrol car’s dashcam
recorded much of the incident thereafter. The dashcam footage begins by showing the officers
turning left from Welch Boulevard onto Pontiac Street. As the troopers are making that turn, the
dashcam video provides a brief glimpse of the taillights of a car ahead. The footage then shows
the officers driving down Pontiac and turning right onto Copeman Boulevard. The dashcam shows No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
a sedan ahead, at the intersection of Copeman and Dupont Street. While not clear from the footage,
it appears that the sedan had just turned left from Copeman onto Dupont. The camera shows the
officers turning left from Copeman onto Dupont, at which point the sedan is once again visible on
the dashcam, now turning right from Dupont onto Begole Street. The officers pursue the sedan,
turning right onto Begole. The footage then shows the sedan pulling into a driveway on Begole.
At that point, the officers turned their emergency lights on and pulled up behind the sedan—a
Chevy Malibu.
During the stop, Troopers McCabe and Whipple seized two loaded rifles from the Malibu’s
passenger compartment. They then arrested both the driver, Julius Jordan, and passenger, Reginald
Hunter, and transported them to the police station. In police custody, Hunter and Jordan made
recorded phone calls suggesting their involvement in a murder-for-hire plot. Through those
recorded phone calls and additional cell-phone communications, investigators learned that Hunter
and Jordan had travelled in a rental car from Alabama to Michigan to commit a murder for hire.
Hunter and Jordan were later charged with conspiracy to commit murder for hire, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a); murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a); and
possession of an unregistered short barrel rifle, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Hunter moved
to suppress the seized guns, arguing that the traffic stop was illegal. The district court held a
hearing on the suppression motion. The dashcam recording was admitted into evidence, and
Troopers McCabe and Whipple testified. Both officers testified that they stopped the Malibu for
failing to come to a complete stop, behavior both officers witnessed at the corner of Copeman &
Dupont and which Whipple also observed at Pontiac & Copeman. The district court credited the
troopers’ testimony and found that probable cause existed to conduct the stop. With his
suppression motion denied, Hunter entered a conditional guilty plea, waiving his right to appeal
-2- No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
except for any grounds raised in pretrial motions. The court sentenced him to 180 months in
prison. Hunter now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
II.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
An ordinary traffic stop constitutes a seizure, and “evidence seized during an illegal traffic stop
must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448, 453
(6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). But an officer “lawfully may stop a car when he has probable
cause to believe that a civil traffic violation has occurred.” Id. An officer certainly has probable
cause to conduct a traffic stop when he personally observes a traffic violation. United States v.
Lott, 954 F.3d 919, 923 (6th Cir. 2020). Failure to stop at a stop sign is a traffic violation in
Michigan. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(8).
We review a district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. Jackson, 682 F.3d at 452. When the district court has denied the
suppression motion, “we review all evidence in a light most favorable to the Government.” Id. at
452–53 (citation omitted).
Hunter makes just one argument on appeal: the district court erred by finding that McCabe
and Whipple had probable cause to stop the Malibu. Hunter claims that “the officers could not
have witnessed the traffic violation” because they “were not in a position to clearly see the conduct
of the Malibu.” Appellant Br. at 12. And he says that that the dashcam footage “showed the
Malibu stopped at each stop sign,” “plainly contradict[ing] the officers’ testimony.” Id. at 12, 14.
The district court did not err by concluding that Troopers McCabe and Whipple had
probable cause to conduct the traffic stop. McCabe testified that, while he and Whipple were
driving on Welch, he observed a Chevy Malibu “make an abrupt turn” from Welch onto Pontiac.
-3- No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
R. 98, Evidentiary Hearing Tr., PageID 657. Suspecting that the turn was made “to evade our
patrol vehicle,” McCabe and Whipple turned onto Pontiac and began following the Malibu. Id.
McCabe testified that “[a]s we [we]re coming to the intersection of Pontiac and Copeman, I was
looking over my right shoulder at the vehicle” and “could see the [Malibu] yielding to traffic on
Dupont but not coming to a complete stop at the stop sign.” Id. at 658.
Whipple’s testimony tracked McCabe’s. He testified that, while driving on Welch, they
observed “a dark-colored Chevrolet Malibu . . . suddenly brake[] and turn[] southbound onto
Pontiac.” R. 99, Evidentiary Hearing Tr., PageID 746. He further testified that he saw the Malibu
“not make a complete stop” at both Pontiac & Copeman and Copeman & Dupont. Id. at 749, 751.
The district court reasonably credited McCabe and Whipple’s testimony. First, the video
evidence does not contradict the troopers’ version of the events. The dashcam footage provides
only fragmentary shots of the Malibu. It doesn’t capture the crucial moments when the Malibu
approached the two intersections in question. So, as the district court found, the dashcam footage
is inconclusive—it simply does not show whether the Malibu came to a complete stop at either
intersection.
Next, the district court found it credible that McCabe and Whipple could see more than
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0109n.06
No. 24-1471
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 26, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) v. STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) REGINALD L. HUNTER, MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )
Before: BATCHELDER, LARSEN, and RITZ, Circuit Judges
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Reginald Hunter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder
for hire and murder for hire. He now appeals his conviction, arguing that state troopers conducted
an unlawful traffic stop that led to the discovery of incriminating evidence against him. For the
following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I.
While on patrol in Flint, Michigan state troopers Nicholas McCabe and Merik Whipple
stopped a Chevy Malibu. The Malibu drew the troopers’ attention when it made an abrupt turn,
which the officers believed was designed to evade the patrol car. The patrol car’s dashcam
recorded much of the incident thereafter. The dashcam footage begins by showing the officers
turning left from Welch Boulevard onto Pontiac Street. As the troopers are making that turn, the
dashcam video provides a brief glimpse of the taillights of a car ahead. The footage then shows
the officers driving down Pontiac and turning right onto Copeman Boulevard. The dashcam shows No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
a sedan ahead, at the intersection of Copeman and Dupont Street. While not clear from the footage,
it appears that the sedan had just turned left from Copeman onto Dupont. The camera shows the
officers turning left from Copeman onto Dupont, at which point the sedan is once again visible on
the dashcam, now turning right from Dupont onto Begole Street. The officers pursue the sedan,
turning right onto Begole. The footage then shows the sedan pulling into a driveway on Begole.
At that point, the officers turned their emergency lights on and pulled up behind the sedan—a
Chevy Malibu.
During the stop, Troopers McCabe and Whipple seized two loaded rifles from the Malibu’s
passenger compartment. They then arrested both the driver, Julius Jordan, and passenger, Reginald
Hunter, and transported them to the police station. In police custody, Hunter and Jordan made
recorded phone calls suggesting their involvement in a murder-for-hire plot. Through those
recorded phone calls and additional cell-phone communications, investigators learned that Hunter
and Jordan had travelled in a rental car from Alabama to Michigan to commit a murder for hire.
Hunter and Jordan were later charged with conspiracy to commit murder for hire, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a); murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a); and
possession of an unregistered short barrel rifle, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Hunter moved
to suppress the seized guns, arguing that the traffic stop was illegal. The district court held a
hearing on the suppression motion. The dashcam recording was admitted into evidence, and
Troopers McCabe and Whipple testified. Both officers testified that they stopped the Malibu for
failing to come to a complete stop, behavior both officers witnessed at the corner of Copeman &
Dupont and which Whipple also observed at Pontiac & Copeman. The district court credited the
troopers’ testimony and found that probable cause existed to conduct the stop. With his
suppression motion denied, Hunter entered a conditional guilty plea, waiving his right to appeal
-2- No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
except for any grounds raised in pretrial motions. The court sentenced him to 180 months in
prison. Hunter now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
II.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
An ordinary traffic stop constitutes a seizure, and “evidence seized during an illegal traffic stop
must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448, 453
(6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). But an officer “lawfully may stop a car when he has probable
cause to believe that a civil traffic violation has occurred.” Id. An officer certainly has probable
cause to conduct a traffic stop when he personally observes a traffic violation. United States v.
Lott, 954 F.3d 919, 923 (6th Cir. 2020). Failure to stop at a stop sign is a traffic violation in
Michigan. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.649(8).
We review a district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. Jackson, 682 F.3d at 452. When the district court has denied the
suppression motion, “we review all evidence in a light most favorable to the Government.” Id. at
452–53 (citation omitted).
Hunter makes just one argument on appeal: the district court erred by finding that McCabe
and Whipple had probable cause to stop the Malibu. Hunter claims that “the officers could not
have witnessed the traffic violation” because they “were not in a position to clearly see the conduct
of the Malibu.” Appellant Br. at 12. And he says that that the dashcam footage “showed the
Malibu stopped at each stop sign,” “plainly contradict[ing] the officers’ testimony.” Id. at 12, 14.
The district court did not err by concluding that Troopers McCabe and Whipple had
probable cause to conduct the traffic stop. McCabe testified that, while he and Whipple were
driving on Welch, he observed a Chevy Malibu “make an abrupt turn” from Welch onto Pontiac.
-3- No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
R. 98, Evidentiary Hearing Tr., PageID 657. Suspecting that the turn was made “to evade our
patrol vehicle,” McCabe and Whipple turned onto Pontiac and began following the Malibu. Id.
McCabe testified that “[a]s we [we]re coming to the intersection of Pontiac and Copeman, I was
looking over my right shoulder at the vehicle” and “could see the [Malibu] yielding to traffic on
Dupont but not coming to a complete stop at the stop sign.” Id. at 658.
Whipple’s testimony tracked McCabe’s. He testified that, while driving on Welch, they
observed “a dark-colored Chevrolet Malibu . . . suddenly brake[] and turn[] southbound onto
Pontiac.” R. 99, Evidentiary Hearing Tr., PageID 746. He further testified that he saw the Malibu
“not make a complete stop” at both Pontiac & Copeman and Copeman & Dupont. Id. at 749, 751.
The district court reasonably credited McCabe and Whipple’s testimony. First, the video
evidence does not contradict the troopers’ version of the events. The dashcam footage provides
only fragmentary shots of the Malibu. It doesn’t capture the crucial moments when the Malibu
approached the two intersections in question. So, as the district court found, the dashcam footage
is inconclusive—it simply does not show whether the Malibu came to a complete stop at either
intersection.
Next, the district court found it credible that McCabe and Whipple could see more than
what the footage showed, given “the stationary nature of the dashcam.” Id. at 799. The court
rejected Hunter’s argument that, from the officers’ vantage point, they couldn’t have seen the
Malibu fail to stop. Instead, the judge found the officers’ testimony “consistent with what I saw
in the pictures, in the diagrams of the area, and the video that was played from three different
vantage points.” Id. at 799–800.
The record provides no reason for this court to second-guess the district court’s conclusion
that Troopers McCabe and Whipple were credible. When reviewing whether officers had probable
-4- No. 24-1471, United States v. Hunter
cause to conduct a traffic stop, we must give “due regard” to the trial court’s opportunity to judge
witness credibility. United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740, 749 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
And “findings of fact anchored in credibility assessment are generally not subject to reversal upon
appellate review.” United States v. Ivy, 165 F.3d 397, 401 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see
also Jackson, 682 F.3d at 453–54 (“The district court found Officer Meech’s uncontradicted
testimony in this regard to be credible, a conclusion entitled to deference on appeal.”).
Here, the district court’s probable-cause determination turned largely on its credibility
assessment of McCabe and Whipple. And McCabe and Whipple’s testimony was coherent and
consistent with the record. Therefore, the district court did not err by crediting the troopers’
testimony and finding that they had probable cause to stop the Malibu.
***
We AFFIRM.
-5-