Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the State’s interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence in State v. McWilliams. The court held that the appeal was not proper under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 3 because the issues concerned the application of the rules to the particular facts, rather than interpretation of criminal law with widespread ramifications. The underlying suppression order found that the officer’s actions constituted a seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State's interlocutory appeal from the order granting suppression was permissible under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 3.
- Whether the appeal presented an issue requiring interpretation of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.2 with widespread ramifications, rather than merely application of the rules to the particular facts.
Holdings
- The State's appeal was improper and had to be dismissed because resolution of the appeal turned on the particular facts of the encounter and did not require interpretation of the criminal rules with widespread ramifications.
- The court declined to reach the merits of the seizure and reasonable-suspicion issues because deciding them would not involve the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law within Rule 3.
Key quotations
“As a matter of practice, our court has only taken appeals which are narrow in scope and involve the interpretation of law.” (2017 Ark. 307, at 4)
“Appeals are not allowed merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred.” (2017 Ark. 307, at 4)
“This is a case involving the trial court’s consideration of the particular facts of the case and its determination that those facts did not provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop under Rule 3.1.” (2017 Ark. 307, at 5)
Factual background
On December 19, 2015, Stoney McWilliams and his girlfriend were walking along the shoulder of Highway 63B while carrying groceries. Officer Kevin Holt became suspicious when McWilliams appeared to shield his face, turned his patrol car around, approached with rear lights flashing, exited, and ordered McWilliams to stop. After asking McWilliams's name and requesting identification, Holt prompted McWilliams to run. The circuit court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and granted suppression of evidence obtained after the stop.
Procedural history
The Poinsett County Circuit Court granted McWilliams's motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped him, finding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and that the encounter constituted a seizure. The State appealed under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 3. The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the appeal as improper because it turned on the application of law to the particular facts rather than interpretation of criminal rules with widespread ramifications.