United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1221

Kansas City, Kansas officers stopped Dana J. Huff’s vehicle for a traffic lane violation; an officer saw a handgun in plain view and later spotted a rifle in the center console area.
Officers removed the keys, ordered Huff and his passenger out, handcuffed them, and placed them in a patrol car.
Huff was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (handgun and rifle) and for possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle.
At a suppression hearing the district court found the stop and the officer’s reaching in to remove keys lawful but suppressed both firearms because the court concluded officers lacked probable cause to arrest and the government had not shown knowledge of Huff’s felon status or the rifle’s unregistered condition at the time.
Two days later the government moved to reconsider, citing Kansas City, Kan., Mun. Ord. § 22-177(a)(5) (transporting a loaded, uncased pistol is unlawful). The district court granted reconsideration, found probable cause based on the uncased pistol, and denied suppression; Huff was convicted as a felon in possession based on the rifle.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the government’s motion to reconsider and (2) whether officers had probable cause to search/arrest Huff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may grant government motion to reconsider suppression when government failed to raise the legal theory earlier	Huff: Government waived the ordinance-based argument by not presenting it at the suppression hearing; reconsideration improperly allowed.	Government: Reconsideration is within the court’s discretion; earlier omission was prosecutorial oversight and does not require suppression if police conduct was lawful.	Court: No abuse of discretion — district court may grant reconsideration; requiring justification is discretionary, not mandatory.
Whether officers had probable cause to search/arrest after seeing firearms	Huff: Officer’s reach to remove keys and arrest lacked probable cause; the ordinance was not the officer’s stated basis for arrest, so arrest was pretextual and unlawful.	Government: Plain-view uncased handgun gave objective probable cause under the municipal ordinance to search and arrest regardless of officer’s subjective intent.	Court: Probable cause existed based on the uncased pistol in plain view; search and arrest were lawful.

Servants of The Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (standards permitting reconsideration when facts, law, or parties’ positions were misapprehended)
United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review of reconsideration rulings)
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (no bright-line rule requiring justification to reopen suppression on new legal theory)
United States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2009) (permitting reconsideration when later matters show no constitutional violation)
United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Nicholson, 17 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1994) (vehicle search permitted on probable cause that vehicle contains evidence of a crime)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to existence of probable cause)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective standard for reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view doctrine and objective standards governing seizures)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule’s primary purpose is deterrence of police misconduct)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary rule principles)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule requires sufficiently deliberate police misconduct to justify exclusion)