CA1: Motion to reconsider too late to show a dispute in the facts to get a suppression hearing

A motion to reconsider is too late to present disputed material facts to get a suppression hearing. United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009):

As we have noted, in ruling on appellant’s original motion to suppress, the district court “considered as evidence only the statements made in the affidavits submitted by the parties.” In the affidavit attached to his motion, Allen did not dispute the Government’s version of events related to the search of the vehicle. The affidavit does not contradict the officer’s direct statement that he was able to see the gun in the driver’s side door of the Mercedes by simply leaning over the hood and shining his flashlight into the window. See Staula, 80 F.3d at 604 (noting that an evidentiary hearing was not required where appellant’s affidavit contained no facts that contradicted a police officer’s direct statements). Indeed, the affidavit’s only references to the search of the Mercedes are appellant’s assertions that “[a] Mercedes nearby was opened with a key alleged to have been taken from me and searched” and “I was never seen with the Mercedes and I did not consent or grant permission to the search of the Mercedes.” These vague statements, neither of which even mentions the manner in which Officer Coyne searched the vehicle, were insufficient to call into question the government’s account.

The developing situation during the traffic stop revealed that the vehicle on defendant’s trailer might have been stolen. The length of the stop was not unreasonable because it was hard to get answers from others at 3 a.m. People v. O’Dell, 913 N.E.2d 979 (Ill. App. 2009).*

IP address at defendant’s house was PC to search the house for child porn. The defendant’s argument that a wireless internet connection could be used and a miscreant could have used the internet connection did not nullify the PC. United States v. Courtney, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109344 (E.D. Ark. September 22, 2008)*:

Probable cause to search exists if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. Law enforcement officers were not required to negate every possible explanation for child pornography having been sent from Courtney’s IP address before applying for a warrant to search the apparent source — Courtney’s computer. When federal agents hear hoof beats, they are not required to eliminate the possibility of zebras before requesting a warrant to look for horses.