Meyer v. State

[CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]

In Meyer v. State,[1] the court of appeals held whether a Fourth Amendment seizure took place is a question of law that the appellate court evaluates de novo.[2] Meyer was convicted of felony driving under the influence based on evidence obtained by the police.[3] Prior to the trial, Meyer filed a motion to suppress, claiming the evidence was obtained during an investigatory stop without necessary reasonable suspicion.[4] During the evidentiary hearing, the superior court concluded the encounter was an investigatory stop but was justified as there was reasonable suspicion.[5] On appeal, the court of appeals concluded the encounter was not an investigatory stop and thus reasonable suspicion was not needed.[6] 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.[7] The court of appeals noted historical facts are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard.[8] However, it concluded the categorization of those facts remains a question of law.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]

[1] 368 P.3d 613 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
[2] Id. at 615.
[3] Id. at 614.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 614¬–15.
[6] Id. at 615.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 617.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 620.
[11] Id. at 615.

Meyer v. State

[CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]

In Meyer v. State,[1] the court of appeals held whether a Fourth Amendment seizure took place is a question of law that the appellate court evaluates de novo.[2] Meyer was convicted of felony driving under the influence based on evidence obtained by the police.[3] Prior to the trial, Meyer filed a motion to suppress, claiming the evidence was obtained during an investigatory stop without necessary reasonable suspicion.[4] During the evidentiary hearing, the superior court concluded the encounter was an investigatory stop but was justified as there was reasonable suspicion.[5] On appeal, the court of appeals concluded the encounter was not an investigatory stop and thus reasonable suspicion was not needed.[6] 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.[7] The court of appeals noted historical facts are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard.[8] However, it concluded the categorization of those facts remains a question of law.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]

[1] 368 P.3d 613 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
[2] Id. at 615.
[3] Id. at 614.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 614¬–15.
[6] Id. at 615.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 617.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 620.
[11] Id. at 615.