CA6: RS for def’s stop for transporting a firearm in commerce with the intent that it be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder, not the traffic offense asserted by the govt

“Defendant Darren Wesley Huff was convicted in federal district court of transporting a firearm in commerce with the intent that it be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(2).” He was a member of a militia group who sought to have the President and others indicted for treason by a local grand jury. When the grand jury wouldn’t, he enlisted others to take over the Madisonville, TN courthouse by force. The FBI heard of the plans and got involved, and all local law enforcement got the intel in morning briefings. He was stopped for a purported traffic offense and questioned, and he pretty much admitted his plan. The officers let him go [which the court finds inexplicable]. He moved to suppress his statements and the officers seeing his gun which he volunteered because of an alleged illegal stop, and the plurality finds the stop without reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense because the video doesn’t support it. Instead, the stop is found valid on a ground not argued yet supported by the record: there was reasonable suspicion of him being involved in the planned assault on the courthouse, and the admission occurred after he was told he could leave. United States v. Huff, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19466 (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2015):

Nevertheless, an appeals court may uphold the district court’s admission of the evidence on any ground supported by the record. Indeed, we are obligated to do so if the district court’s decision to admit the evidence “can be justified for any reason.” Higgins, 557 F.3d at 389. I would uphold the admission of the statements from the traffic stop on two independent grounds. First, regardless whether Wilson had probable cause to believe that the traffic violations had occurred, he had reasonable suspicion, based on the totality of the circumstances, to believe that Huff might be involved in the Madisonville uprising that Wilson had been warned about that very morning. That suspicion was sufficient to warrant further investigation. Second, because Huff did not volunteer the main incriminating statements admitted at trial until after the stop had ended and he had been sent on his way, the statements need not have been suppressed in any event, as they were not a byproduct of the stop.