Opinion ID: 2765309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Reopen Suppression Hearing

Text: Next, Daniels argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to reopen the suppression hearing after law enforcement disclosed the squad car video. “We review the district court’s denial of [a] motion to reopen [a] suppression issue for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Chavez Loya, 528 F.3d 546, 555 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court concluded that the squad car video did not change its ultimate conclusion that Daniels’ Miranda waiver and subsequent admissions were voluntary. The district court found that although Daniels could have been under the influence -5- of “something” while in the squad car, he did not slur his speech when speaking to the officers; he “was oriented to time, place, and remembered specific details” as he conversed with the officers; and “whenever there [were] any exchanges, he knew where he was” and “knew what had happened.” These findings are supported by the record. Moreover, to the extent that the squad car video suggests indicia of intoxication at the time of Daniels’ arrest, that fact bears little weight on Daniels’ state of mind during the actual interview, which occurred approximately eight hours after the squad car video was recorded. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Daniels’ motion to reopen the suppression hearing.