While stopped for a vehicle operating violation, respondent gave police permission to search his car, but they found nothing. However, they impounded the car because respondent had no operators license, and they found cocaine during a subsequent search. Respondent filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence from the second search, which the Government contested on the ground that the search was conducted pursuant to his continuing consent. However, the Government abandoned this argument, and the District Court granted respondents motion. The Government subsequently moved for reconsideration of the suppression order, again raising the consent issue, but the court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Governments appeal as untimely, holding that the Governments motion to reconsider did not "toll" the 30-day period to appeal, which began to run on the date of the initial order. The court also held that this Courts decisions in United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 - that a motion for rehearing renders an otherwise final decision of a district court not final until it decides the motion - and United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (per curiam) - that there is no exception to Healys rule for petitions for rehearing which do not assert an alleged error of law - did not control in a case where the Governments motion is based on a previously disavowed theory.

Held:

The Governments appeal was timely. All motions for reconsideration are subsumed under one general rule - the rule laid down in Healy. If a merits inquiry were grafted onto the general rule, litigants would [502 U.S. 1, 2] be required to guess at their peril the date on which the time to appeal commences to run. An alternative method of analysis - that the Governments motion was not a "true" motion for reconsideration because the Government did not initially urge the argument on which it based the motion - would also break down into subcategories the more general category of "motions for reconsideration" described in this Courts previous decisions.

Certiorari granted; 920 F.2d 702, vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming ordered that certain evidence which the Government proposed to use in respondents pending criminal trial be suppressed. The Government appealed the order to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but that court dismissed the Governments appeal. It held that the 30-day period in which to file an appeal began to run on the date of the District Courts original suppression order, rather than on the date the District Court denied the Governments motion for reconsideration. 920 F.2d 702 (1990). We grant the Governments petition for certiorari and vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Respondent was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The circumstances leading to the indictment are largely uncontested. Law enforcement officers stopped respondents car for a suspected operating violation. The officers questioned respondent and asked for permission to search the car. Respondent granted the request and a brief search was conducted but no cocaine was identified or seized. However, noting that neither respondent nor his passenger had a valid operators license, the officers impounded the car and transported respondent and his passenger to a Western Union office. The officers then went to the towing service lot and searched the car a second time. They found cocaine in the trunk. Respondent filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in the second search. [502 U.S. 1, 3] Among the theories on which the Government originally contested the motion was that the second search had been conducted pursuant to respondents continuing consent. However, before the District Court ruled on the suppression motion, the Government abandoned the continuing