IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 16-00056-CG-C

TELESFORO LOZANO

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to reconsider the 

denial of his motion to suppress. (Doc. 24) Defendant asks the Court to reconsider 

its order (Doc. 23) denying his motion to suppress.

Courts “have permitted motions for reconsideration in criminal cases 

notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not 

provide for them.” United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1199 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Such motions “are evaluated under the same standards utilized in civil cases.” 

United States v. Sencan, Crim. No. 13- 00117, 2013 WL 6237455 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 3, 

2013). A party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate: “(1) an intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) . . . correct clear 

error or manifest injustice.” Lamar Advert. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 

189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). Disagreement with the Court’s ruling is not a 

ground for reconsideration, see id., but that is essentially the basis of Defendant’s 

motion. 

This Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that “[t]he totality 

Case 1:16-cr-00056-CG-C Document 25 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

of the circumstances demonstrate that Trooper Barnes had a particularized and 

objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing prior to completing the tasks tied to 

the traffic infraction” and that “once the drug dog alerted to the vehicle, the 

reasonable suspicion flowered into probable cause.” (Doc. 23, p. 9). Defendant 

contends that the Order should be reconsidered because the prolonged detention by 

Trooper Barnes into matters unrelated to the initial traffic stop was not supported 

by reasonable suspicion. 

Defendant points to some of the facts that this Court found raised suspicion, 

arguing that they have or could have a legitimate basis. For instance, Defendant 

contends that the fact that the vehicle he was driving was registered shortly before 

the trip in a different state than the state where Defendant resided does not 

necessarily demonstrate anything improper. The Court would agree that the 

location and timing of the registration may have been insufficient, by itself, to raise 

a particularized objective basis for suspecting wrongdoing. However, as the Court 

stated, “a court must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see 

whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting 

legal wrongdoing.” (Doc. 24, p. 6 (citations and internal quotations omitted)). The 

fact that the Defendant has an explanation for one or more of the facts that raised 

suspicion does not invalidate the conclusion from the totality of the circumstances 

that Barnes had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal 

wrongdoing.

Defendant also disagrees with Trooper Barnes’ conclusion that the Defendant 

Case 1:16-cr-00056-CG-C Document 25 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 3
3

reported he was going to purchase a car, claiming that was a misunderstanding by 

Barnes who was clouded by his inability to understand the Defendant and “driven 

no doubt by his intrinsic suspicions.” However, Barnes’ understanding that 

Defendant reported he was going to purchase a car was confirmed by Martinez who 

spoke fluent Spanish and questioned the Defendant directly. His conclusion was 

clearly not unreasonable. Moreover, even if the Defendant was not going to 

purchase a car, but only to pick up a car, it was still suspicious that he did not know 

what kind of car he was going to pick up or where in Atlanta he was going to pick it 

up, he had a contact number to call to get the information when he arrived in 

Atlanta but he could not find the number, and he had a tow bar that appeared to be 

unusable with his vehicle. 

The Court, after reviewing the facts again, agrees with the prior decision. 

The facts discussed above, together with the other suspicious circumstances 

mentioned in the Order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, were sufficient to 

support a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing prior to 

Barnes’ completion of the tasks tied to the traffic infraction. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 24) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cr-00056-CG-C Document 25 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3