USA v. Laulu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN LAULU,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Before the Court at Docket 143 is Defendant Ryan Laulu’s Motion to
Reconsider Order at Docket 141 (the “Motion to Reconsider”). 	The Government filed a
response in opposition at Docket 144.1
Mr. Laulu requests that this Court reconsider its denial of his Motion to
Suppress at Docket 141. “No precise ‘rule’ governs the district court’s inherent power to
grant or deny a motion to reconsider a prior ruling in a criminal proceeding.”2 The local
rules, however, offer some guidance. Pursuant to D. Alaska Loc. Crim. R. 47.1(g)(1), the
Court will “ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of one of the
1 	The Court notes that a response to a motion to reconsideration ordinarily may not be
filed unless requested by the Court. 	See D. Alaska Loc. Crim. R. 47.1(g)(3). 	The Court
nonetheless accepts the Government’s response as filed.
2 United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013).
Case 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS Document 154 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 5

USA v. Laulu 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00049-JMK
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider 	Page 2
following: [A] a manifest error of the law or fact; [B] discovery of new material facts not
previously available; or [C] an intervening change in the law.” 	Notably, the “district
court’s authority to revisit a ruling on a suppression motion ‘is within its sound judicial
discretion.’”3
Mr. Laulu asserts that this Court committed numerous manifest errors of fact
and law. 	First, he asserts that the Court “ignor[ed] the fact that the backpack could have
and should have been placed in a secure, locked place, which was available i.e., the private
auto in the private property parking lot, given the authority cited in Defendant’s pleadings
. . . .”4 However, the Court expressly acknowledged and disagreed with this objection in
its Order denying Mr. 	Laulu’s Motion to 	Suppress5 and Magistrate Judge Scoble
extensively analyzed this fact in his Final Report and Recommendation.6 Mr. Laulu further
asserts that the Court committed an error of fact “in finding there was ‘no secure place
available 	to 	leave 	the 	[backpack].’”7 	In 	his 	Final 	Report 	and 	Recommendation,
Judge Scoble explained that he credited SA Watson’s testimony that the FBI agents were
not aware that the parked vehicle belonged to Mr. Laulu and would have taken the
backpack regardless pursuant to FBI policy as “part of the property that he was arrested
with.”8 	A motion to reconsider is not an appropriate vehicle for a party to continue to
relitigate issues already properly brought before and decided by the Court.
3 Id.
4 Docket 143 at 2.
5 See Docket 141 at 2 (“Specifically, Mr. Laulu asserts that FBI agents ‘were required to
give Laulu options,’ such as putting the backpack in his vehicle or on the ground.”).
6 See Docket 130 at 26–31.
7 Docket 143 at 5.
8 Docket 130 at 29.
Case 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS Document 154 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 5

USA v. Laulu 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00049-JMK
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider 	Page 3
Second, Mr. Laulu asserts that the Court “is in error, basing its ruling on the
fact that ‘Mr. Laulu was aware and did not object. . .’ [] to the FBI agents taking possession
of the backpack during Laulu’s arrest.”9 	Mr. Laulu states that “there cannot be implied
consent from silence”; however, the Court has never suggested that the search of the
backpack was proper because consent was given.10 Mr. Laulu cherry-picks this quote from
a list of other factual findings made by Judge Scoble during the evidentiary hearing; a fact
which was intended to bolster the Court’s finding that Mr. Laulu gave no indication that
he wished for the backpack to be stored in the car present at the residence where he was
arrested.11 This fact has no bearing on the Court’s ultimate conclusion that the “FBI agents
here would have taken the backpack and discovered the firearm at the FBI office pursuant
to their inventory policy, even if the FBI agents had not opened the backpack at the time
of Laulu’s arrest.”12
Mr. Laulu asserts that the Court committed manifest error by “rejecting the
significance of the fact that the vehicle was undisputedly associated with Mr. Laulu, was
in a private property parking lot, outside a private dwelling,” and asserts that the Court
neglected to consider case law Mr. Laulu cites to at Docket 125.13 	In its Order at
Docket 141, the Court specifically considered this fact.14 	Indeed, Mr. Laulu goes on to
9 Docket 143 at 2.
10 Id.
11 See Docket 130 at 28.
12 Id. at 30.
13 Docket 143 at 3–4.
14 See Docket 141 at 5.
Case 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS Document 154 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 5

USA v. Laulu 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00049-JMK
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider 	Page 4
quote the Court’s consideration of this fact in his Motion to Reconsider.15 It is the job of
the District Court to determine the weight of the facts before it. Further, the cases cited to
at Docket 125 are not binding on this Court, irrelevant to the extent that they pertain to
inventory searches of vehicles or were explicitly considered by the Court.16 	Again, this
does not constitute a manifest error of law or fact and is an improper basis for
reconsideration.
Lastly, Mr. Laulu asserts that “[t]he Court is in error in holding that
Mr. Laulu was incorrect in asserting that the FBI agents ‘were required to give Laulu
options’ such as putting the backpack in his vehicle or on the ground.”17 Mr. Laulu does
not cite to any authority for this proposition. 	Mr. Laulu simply has not demonstrated a
manifest error of fact or law, new material facts, or an intervening change in the law.18 The
Court declines to reconsider its ruling.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion at Docket 143 is DENIED.
15 Id. at 4 (“The Court is in error in stating that ‘. . . the magistrate judge specifically
considered that there is no authority for Mr. Laulu’s assertion that FBI agents had an obligation to
leave the backpack in an unsecured vehicle at the scene. 	The Court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s conclusion that no such obligation exists, regardless of to whom the vehicle belonged.”)
(emphasis in original).
16 The Court notes that one case cited by Mr. Laulu––and binding on this Court––
significantly cuts against some of the arguments made in his Motion to Reconsider. See United
States v. Knepper, 256 Fed. Appx. 982, 984–85 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that it was reasonable for
the police to seize a backpack and transport it to the station for safekeeping in accordance with
departmental policy where the police did not believe that the Defendant resided in the residence at
which he was arrested and “failed to provide alternative instructions”).
17 Docket 143 at 4.
18 See D. Alaska Loc. Crim. R. 47.1(g).
Case 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS Document 154 Filed 09/12/22 Page 4 of 5

USA v. Laulu 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00049-JMK
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider 	Page 5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2022, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cr-00049-JMK-MMS Document 154 Filed 09/12/22 Page 5 of 5