Opinion ID: 725479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion to Reopen the Suppression Process

Text: 13 Donahoe's motions to reopen the suppression hearing raised three arguments which he claims previous counsel did not raise: that Wallette's arrest was illegal because he was not subject to state jurisdiction for state offenses committed on the reservation, that the failure to deliver Wallette promptly to tribal authorities violated his rights under the Tribal Code and the U.S. Constitution and that the failure to administer Miranda warnings resulted in a defective federal search warrant application because incriminating statements Wallette made after waiving his tribal notification rights were used to apply for the federal warrant. 14 The district court's denial of a pretrial motion to reconsider its suppression determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir.1994). The district court abuses its discretion if it declines to reconsider when several new issues have become relevant since the time of its original ruling. Id. 15 At the October 13, 1994 hearing on the motion to reopen the suppression hearing the court said that it would take the matter under submission. Later that day, the court issued a written order denying Donahoe's motion to reopen. However, the court's final Order addresses the issue of Miranda warnings and promptness of delivery and makes clear that Wallette was properly held on Tribal charges. The voluntariness hearing transcript reveals that each of the three additional issues raised in the motion to reopen the suppression proceedings was argued at the Jackson v. Denno voluntariness hearing on November 7, 1994. 16 Wallette's counsel may have formulated new strategies, but no change in circumstances gave rise to new issues between the time the court denied the motion to suppress and its refusal to reconsider that denial. Review of the evidence at the Jackson v. Denno hearing and at the earlier hearings on suppression and the motions to reopen the suppression process indicates that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying those motions.