In Meyer v. State, the court of appeals held whether a Fourth Amendment seizure took place is a question of law that the appellate court evaluates de novo. Meyer was convicted of felony driving under the influence based on evidence obtained by the police. Prior to the trial, Meyer filed a motion to suppress, claiming the evidence was obtained during an investigatory stop without necessary reasonable suspicion. During the evidentiary hearing, the superior court concluded the encounter was an investigatory stop but was justified as there was reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded the encounter was not an investigatory stop and thus reasonable suspicion was not needed. On rehearing, Meyer argued the superior court’s conclusion as to the investigatory stop was a finding of fact that could not be independently reviewed by an appellate court. The court of appeals noted historical facts are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard. However, it concluded the categorization of those facts remains a question of law. The court reasoned the use of de novo review on appeal increases uniformity and predictability by handling the fundamental question as a question of law. Reaffirming its earlier decision, the court of appeals held whether a Fourth Amendment seizure took place is a question of law that the appellate court evaluates de novo.