IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 15-00134-CG-B

RAYFIELD SNOWDEN

 Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion for 

Reconsideration of Order Granting Suppression. (Doc. 25). For the reasons set 

forth herein, the motion is DENIED.

“Although no statute or rule expressly provides for the filing of a motion for 

reconsideration in criminal cases, federal district courts necessarily have 

substantial discretion in ruling on motions for reconsideration.” United States v. 

Mason, No. 07-cr-52, 2008 WL 1882255, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2008). 

Essentially three grounds for granting reconsideration exist: “(1) an intervening 

change in law controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3) the need 

to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Id. The United States argues the third 

ground.

On August 26, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Rayfield Snowden’s 

(hereinafter, “Defendant”) Motion to Suppress the evidence seized during a search 

of his vehicle. (Doc. 19). In this decision, the Court held that “the prolonged 

Case 1:15-cr-00134-CG-C Document 26 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

detention of Defendant failed to comport with the requirements of the Fourth 

Amendment because Trooper Roe failed to articulate a particularized suspicion that 

criminal activity was afoot before the initial traffic stop with Defendant was 

completed.” Id. at 7. The Court relied on the recent United States Supreme Court 

case of Rodriguez v. Unites States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), in reaching this decision.

The United States argues that the Court’s decision was wrong because (1) the 

post-warning encounter was consensual and (2) the Court failed to “analyze the 

body of law concerning consensual encounters.” (Doc. 25, p. 1). The Court finds 

these arguments unpersuasive for the following reasons.

In support of its position, the United States cites several cases. See (Doc. 25). 

The problem is that each case predates Rodriguez. The Court relied on Rodriguez

because it is binding and current authority in this matter. To ignore Rodriguez’s

holding would give short shrift to the directives of the United States Supreme 

Court. The Court is inclined to follow the United States Supreme Court’s directives.

The Supreme Court was clear in Rodriguez. An officer’s authority to seize an 

individual ends when the tasks tied to the traffic stop have been or reasonably 

should have been completed. Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015). “Absent 

reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a[n]

[investigation] violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”1 

 1 The Court is dissuaded by the attempts to differentiate the dog sniff in Rodriguez

from Trooper Roe’s actions. (Doc. 17, pp. 7–8). This distinction puts form over 

substance. It matters not if it is a dog sniff or a request to count one’s money. Both 

actions are a “measure aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary criminal 

wrongdoing” independent to the traffic stop’s mission. Rodriguez, 13 S. Ct. at 1615.

Case 1:15-cr-00134-CG-C Document 26 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Id. at 1611.

The Court’s suppression is further substantiated by the United States’

instant motion. The United States concedes that “[o]nce Trooper Roe saw that 

Snowden had much more cash than originally stated, the trooper had formed 

reasonable suspicion that Snowden was lying and had a duty to investigate further, 

which he did by asking questions about money and drugs in Snowden’s car.” (Doc. 

25, p. 10) (emphasis added). Trooper Roe had reasonable suspicion after the traffic 

stop was completed because he asked to count the money. By asking to count the 

money, he prolonged the duration of the traffic stop. Therefore, the holding of 

Rodriguez applies. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it’s original decision was not a 

clear error or a manifest injustice. Therefore, the United States’ Motion for 

Reconsideration (Doc. 25) is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDER this 21st day of September, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cr-00134-CG-C Document 26 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 3