you now is there is no court date for a suppression hearing in E.2d 241, 246 (2005) (‘We have found no other statutes or appellate cases that give a judge discretion to find a suppression motion waived by the defendant’s absence.”); State v. Canty, 278 N.J.Super. 80, 650 A.2d 391, 393 (Ct.App.Div.1994) (When a defendant fails to appear at a suppression hearing, “the court may either postpone the hearing ... or proceed in absentia. The court should not dismiss the motion with prejudice.”); People v. Whitehead, 143 A.D.2d 1066, 533 N.Y.S.2d 753, 754 (N.Y.App.Div.1988) (“[A]lthough a defendant may waive or forfeit his right to be present he does not as a consequence of his actions waive his right to a hearing or a trial.”); State v. Desirey, 99 Or.App. 283, 782 P.2d 429, 429 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that the district
holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration