D.Md.: Govt’s motion to reconsider granted motion to suppress denied; arguments now are too late

The government’s motion to reconsider of a granted motion to suppress presents theories that should have been in its original responses and not now. United States v. Cleckley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155016 (D. Md. July 14, 2026):

Because the Government either failed to make the arguments raised in its motion for reconsideration during the briefing of the Defendant’s motion to suppress, or improperly seeks to re-litigate issues in its motion for reconsideration that the Court has already addressed, the Court DENIES the Government’s motion for reconsideration.

As an initial matter, the Government argues for the first time in its motion for reconsideration that the exigent circumstances doctrine applies to the facts of this case, because Mr. Cleckley’s partially clothed condition at the time of his arrest created an exigent circumstance justifying the officers’ entry into Room 54 to retrieve his clothing. ECF No. 64 at 2-6; see also United States v. Gwinn, 219 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2000). The Government neither presented this argument in its response in opposition to Mr. Cleckley’s motion to suppress, see ECF No. 40 at 12-16, nor during the April 30, 2026, evidentiary hearing held on this motion, see ECF No. 66 at 172-197 (Apr. 30, 2026, Tr. at 172:6-197:17). Given this, the argument is not properly raised as ground for reconsideration of the May 8, 2026, Decision. Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 ( holding that a motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised in the original briefing.); see also United States v. Bell, No. 4:25-cr-46, 2025 WL 4673631, at *5-6 (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2025) (noting that the Government’s invocation of a doctrine “for the first time at the hearing,” after taking a different position in its briefing, is “procedurally improper” such that the court “need not consider it”).

In addition, as the Court previously observed, the evidence in this case does not support the Government’s theory that law enforcement officers needed to enter Room 54 to retrieve Mr. Cleckley’s clothing. …

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.