iMY OFFICE, STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF TAOS EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PRESIDING JUDGE: NO. D-820-CR-201800167, D-820-CR-201800168, D-820-CR-201800169, D-820-CR-201800170, ‘D-820-CR-201800171 STATE OF NEW MEXICO Plaintiff, ws. ‘Siras IBN WAHHAJ, LUCAS ALLEN Morton, -HUIRAH WAHHAJ, JANY LEVEILLE, SUBHANNAH WAHHAD Defendants, STATE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION/NO BOND PURSUANT TO RULE 5-409(K) COMES NOW the State of New Mexico, Donald Gallegos, District Attomey for the Bighth Judicial District, by Timothy R. Hasson, Deputy District Attomey, and requests this Court to Reconsider its Order Denying State’s Motion for Pretrial Detention/No Bond pursuant to NMRA Rule 5-409(K) and to consider new evidence for State’s Supplemental Motion for Pretrial Detention/No Bond pursuant to NMRA Rule $-409(K), STATE’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDICIAL ORDER DENYING STATE’S MOTION FILED AUGUST 14, 2018 Rule 5-409(K) expressly permits “motions to reconsider.” The State has brought this motion within the 10-day time period for appeal, see Rule 12-204(C)(1), to toll the appeal time and allow this Court the opportunity to consider the new information and otherwise reconsider its 1order. See State v. Suskiewich, 2014-NMSC-040, § 17, 339 P.3d 614 (“We agree with the Court of Appeals that a motion to reconsider filed within the permissible appeal period suspends the finality of an appealable order or judgment and tolls the time to appeal until the district court has ruled on the motion”). Motions to reconsider are “‘a traditional and virtually unquestioned practice’ and serve judicial economy by permitting lower courts to correct possible errors and ‘thus avoid time-consuming and potentially unnecessary appeals.” State v. Roybal, 2006-NMCA- 043, ] 16, 139 N.M. 341 (quoting United States v, Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78-80 (1964)). Motions to reconsider are an inherent power of the courts. Suskiewich, 2014-NMSC-040, 11. The State moves this Court to reconsider its order because it does not comply with Rule 5-409 NMRA and the case law interpreting that rule. “In most cases, credible proffers and other summaries of evidence, law enforcement and court records, or other nontestimonial information should be sufficient support for an informed decision that the state either has or has not met its constitutional burden.” State ex rel. Torrez v. Whitaker, 2018-NMSC-005, 43, 410 P.3d 201; see also State v. Ferry, 2018-NMSC-004, $3, 409 P.3d 918 (“We previously announced that the prosecuting authority~-and defense counsel--may offer evidence in many different forms during a detention hearing, The litigants may introduce live testimony and proffer documentary evidence ina form that carries sufficient indicia of reliability, and the Rules of Evidence do not apply”). Here, the State proffered 35 exhibits, including police reports from state and federal authorities. This Court did not make any findings that these documents were not credible or otherwise insufficient, See State v. Groves, 2018-NMSC-006, § 31, 410 P.3d 193 (“There is nothing in the record to raise serious doubts about the credibility of the police officers who conducted the investigations and prepared the resulting swom and unswom reports or of the independentvictims and other witnesses who reported their own interlocking and cross-corroborating observations of Defendant’s activities to the police”). In addition, this Court's order does not discuss those proffered items of evidence and does not “specifically address the evidence presented and explain the district court’s decision to order or deny detention within the context of its analysis of that evidence.” State v. Ricardo Soto, Order Remanding to District Court, No. A-1-CA-37485 (Aug. 15, 2018) (non-precedential order on Rule 12-204NMRA appeal). It is reversible on that basis. /d, “In determining whether any information presented at a detention hearing contains indicia of reliability, a court can consider, for example, whether the information is intemally consistent; whether itis credibly contested; whether it originates from or is conveyed by suspect sources; and whether it is corroborated or supported by accounts of independent observers, tangible evidence, a defendant's statements or actions, other sources, or other information.” Torrez, 2018-NMSC-005, 99. This Court's order does not contain any such findings to challenge the undisputed information contained in the State’s exhibits. Cf State v. Ferry, 2018-NMSC-004, ] 8, 409 P.3d 918 (“For this reason, we encourage judges to carefully reduce to writing all reliable information they have considered when deciding to detain or not to detain a defendant.”) ‘Moreover, this Court found that it authorized the search warrants in this case and was thus “aware” of the allegations in those warrants regarding the “starvation of the children”; the “multiple hazards within the ‘compound’; and the “lack of medical, dental or other care that the children allegedly suffered.” Yet this Court then declined to factor this information into its conclusion because “[t]he State produced no such evidence in Court.” Order, 4 5. ‘There is no requirement that the movant both provide the information and have a witness to testify as to that information. “We previously announced [in Torrez] that the prosecuting 3