USA v. Vaughns

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Criminal Action No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAYVON VAUGHNS,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER PARTIAL DENIAL OF
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(DKT. 28)
Mr. Vaughns moves this Court to reconsider its January 3, 2025 Order (Dkt.
24) which partially granted and partially denied his Motion to Suppress Evidence and
Statements (Dkt. 17). The Court granted that portion of Mr. Vaughns’ earlier motion
which sought to suppress his custodial statements, and denied that portion which
sought to suppress evidence, namely the firearm found during an attempted pat-
down.
Despite Mr. Vaughns’ request for a hearing on his motion to suppress, the
Court ruled on the motion without a hearing stating none was necessary based on the
Court’s review of the body-worn camera (BWC) footage of the three involved officers
and the Court’s review of the related exhibit attachments submitted by the parties.
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 6

2
Dkt. 24, pp.1-2; see also id. at p.2, n.1 (stating “[t]he facts are taken from the
statement of facts in Defendant’s Motion and includes the Court’s findings based on
its review of the BWC footage of the three involved Officers and the police reports
attached to the Motion and the Government’s responsive pleading.”); id. at p.10 (“The
Court watched both Officer Grenfell’s and Russell’s BWC and finds the footage
materially 	corroborates 	the 	written 	police 	reports 	describing 	their 	traffic-stop
encounter with Mr. Vaughns, and further supports Officer Grenfell’s reasonable
suspicion supporting the pat-down.”).
Mr. Vaughns now asks this Court to reconsider its prior order. He argues “the
law demands” reconsideration of the Court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary
hearing because he claims the Court improperly resolved his factual challenges to the
traffic stop by “relying solely on police officer reports, without considering directly
contradictory evidence and without properly assessing the reliability and credibility
of those officers.” Dkt. 28, p. 3. He further argues the Court did not properly resolve
factual disputes Mr. Vaughns raised about the pat-down search. Id. at p.6. The
government filed a response opposing the Motion. Dkt. 30. In sum and substance, it
argues Mr. Vaughns’ Motion fails to identify any of the three primary grounds for
reconsideration under Tenth Circuit precedent, he merely seeks to relitigate issues
he previously raised and raises new arguments he failed to assert earlier, and the
Court made proper findings without a hearing based on the Court’s thorough review
of the BWC footage provided by Mr. Vaughns. Id. at pp3-4.
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 6

3
The Court set a deadline for Mr. Vaughns to file a reply in support of his Motion
(Dkt. 29), but he did not file one. Therefore the Motion is fully briefed.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions to
reconsider. They are nonetheless appropriate in criminal cases and are considered
under the same grounds used in civil cases. In the Tenth Circuit, specific grounds for
a motion to reconsider include “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2)
new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)).
Thus, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Id. These motions are not to be used
as a vehicle for “revisit[ing] issues already addressed or advanc[ing] arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952
F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)). A motion for reconsideration “is an extreme remedy
to be granted in rare circumstances.” Brumark, 57 F.3d at 944. The decision to grant
reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Id.
Similarly, the decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a motion to
suppress evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. United States v. Chavez-
Marquez, 66 F.3d 259, 261 (10th Cir. 1995) (district court did not abuse its discretion
when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress without a hearing). “‘A trial court is
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 6

4
required to grant a suppression hearing only when a defendant presents facts
justifying relief. A defendant who requests a hearing bears the burden of showing
that there are disputed issues of material fact.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Woods,
995 F.2d 713, 716 (7th Cir. 1993)). To warrant an evidentiary hearing, the motion to
suppress must raise factual allegations that are “‘sufficiently definite, specific,
detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of
fact going to the validity of the search are in issue.’” Id. (quoting United States v.
Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir. 1986)).
ANALYSIS
The Motion raises neither an intervening change in the controlling law, new
evidence previously unavailable, nor the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice, as a basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. Servants
of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. This is reason alone to deny the Motion. And the
failure to raise any of these issues reveals the Motion contains primarily a rehash of
arguments previously made in the original motion to suppress, new arguments that
could have been raised before, and arguments about purported factual disputes that
are based on conjecture.
The Motion also misconstrues the Court’s prior order. It does so by stating the
prior order relied “solely on police officer reports” to conclude the facts supported
probable cause for the traffic stop and to deny Mr. Vaughns’ request for a hearing on
the motion to suppress. Dkt. 28, §II. This is inaccurate. The Court’s prior order makes
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 6

5
plain that its findings and denial of a hearing were based on the Court’s review of the
BWC footage of the three involved officers, which materially corroborated their
written reports.1 Dkt. 24, pp.1-2; id. at p.2, n.1; id. at p.10. This is an important point
because “a video record of the events at issue can evaporate any factual dispute that
would otherwise exist, as courts view the ‘facts in the light depicted by the videotape.’”
United States v. Norville, 43 F.4th 680, 682 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007)); see also United States v. Murray, 844 F. App’x 39, 42-43
(10th Cir. 2021) (finding no abuse of discretion by district court in denying motion to
suppress without a hearing where the court “relied on the undisputed facts outlined
by the government in concert with the dash cam video and audio” to find the facts
provided probable cause for the officers’ search) (emphasis added).
The Court’s prior order determined, based on its review of the video recordings
Mr. Vaughns provided with his motion to suppress and the videos’ corroboration of
the written reports, that Mr. Vaughns failed to raise a material factual dispute
warranting a hearing. None of the arguments raised by him in his current Motion
warrant reconsideration of that decision.
* 	* 	*
1 This included the video and audio evidence, during the stop, of Officer Russell telling
the driver he had been “driving a little quick,” which the driver did not dispute even
though he did dispute the officer’s contention that the driver failed to use his signal.
Dkt. 24, p.3. The fulsome video evidence corroborated the officers’ reports that they
observed the driver speeding, thus providing probable cause for the traffic stop
regardless of whether the driver had used his turn signal. Id. at pp.7-8.
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 6

6
The 	Motion 	does 	not 	expressly 	argue 	that 	reconsideration 	is 	warranted
because of an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence previously
unavailable, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. And the
Court does not find any of these reasons exist to support reconsideration. As a result,
the Motion is DENIED.
DATED: April 2, 2025
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cr-00238-SKC Document 31 filed 04/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 6