ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Andrew Raphael Reese's Motion to Reconsider. (Doc. # 51.) The Government filed a Response (Doc. # 53) to the Motion on October 6, 2019. Based on the following reasons, the Motion is denied.1

I. ANALYSIS

Litigants may raise motions for reconsideration "in criminal cases even though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for them." United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014). A motion to reconsider may be granted when a court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the law. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Specific grounds 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." Id.

"A motion to reconsider should not be used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised earlier." Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Thus, "[a] motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed." United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

Defendant's Motion does not present grounds for the Court to reconsider its Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress. The evidence in the record shows that the surveillance team conducting the narcotics operation had probable cause to arrest defendant.

Specifically, Sergeant Foster observed Defendant execute a covert transaction with his female associate. The female proceeded to execute what was later confirmed to be a drug transaction with a confidential informant. After observing the suspicious transaction—and further observing Defendant and his female associate behave in a manner that both Sergeant Foster and Officer Hammel recognized to be consistent with drug trafficking—Sergeant Foster had "a substantial basis to believe that Defendant engaged in criminal conduct." (Doc. # 45 at 5.) That conclusion is bolstered by Sergeant Foster's knowledge of Defendant's prior criminal history. Accordingly, Sergeant Foster had probable cause to arrest Defendant. Law enforcement's subsequent search of Defendant's clothing after his detention was, therefore, a valid search incident to arrest.2

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. # 51) is DENIED.