D.N.J.: Burden on motion to reconsider high because it leads to endless litigation; even so, def would lose on merits [just to avoid an IAC claim]

Defendant doesn’t show “new evidence, no change of law, and nothing the Court overlooked in denying the prior motion for suppression.” On the off chance that this could lead to a potential ineffectiveness challenge against former defense counsel, the court goes to the merits anyway and finds that the warrant authorized a search in confined spaces, and the evidence found was validly seized under the plain view doctrine. The evidentiary value was immediately apparent. United States v. Muhammad, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36018 (D.N.J. March 18, 2016). As to reconsideration:

Defendant presents no cognizable grounds for reconsideration. There is no new evidence, no change of law, and nothing the Court overlooked in denying the prior motion for suppression. The motion presents only a new theory for suppression, not previously made either explicitly or implicitly, arising from circumstances that were known or at least available to prior counsel. That prior counsel chose not to specifically challenge the seizure of the weapons and ammunition as lying beyond the search warrant, when all the circumstances of that seizure were available to him, precludes a second suppression hearing pertaining to the same search. Further, there would be no end to motion practice if a party could present its theories seriatim until it gets a successful outcome or exhausts the process itself. The Defendant’s motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied for lack of good cause under L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).