State v. McWilliams, 529 S.W.3d 238

On Dec. 19, 2015, Stoney McWilliams and his girlfriend walked along Highway 63B carrying grocery bags; Officer Kevin Holt drove by and observed McWilliams turn his face away.
Officer Holt turned around, pulled up behind McWilliams with rear lights flashing, exited his patrol car, instructed McWilliams to stop, asked his name and for ID; McWilliams then ran.
McWilliams was later charged with multiple offenses (including possession and fleeing on foot); parties limited suppression hearing facts to events before McWilliams ran.
The circuit court granted McWilliams’s motion to suppress, finding Officer Holt’s conduct amounted to a seizure, the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1, and Rule 2.2 was inapplicable.
The State filed an interlocutory appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court challenging the circuit court’s interpretation of Rule 2.2 and its seizure determination.
The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal as an improper interlocutory appeal under Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 3, concluding the dispute was factbound and did not require interpretation of criminal rules with widespread ramifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McWilliams)	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by interpreting Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2 to invalidate the encounter	Rule 2.2 permits officers to approach persons to request cooperation and is broader than the circuit court’s reading	The officer’s actions went beyond a consensual approach; Rule 2.2 did not authorize this interaction	Appeal dismissed; court held review of Rule 2.2 interpretation not required because case is factbound and not proper under Rule 3
Whether Officer Holt’s actions constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment	The State contends there was no seizure or, alternatively, that any seizure did not lack legal basis	McWilliams argued the turn-around, lights, exit, and order to stop converted the encounter into a seizure lacking reasonable suspicion	The circuit court found a seizure and lack of reasonable suspicion; the Supreme Court declined to review those factual conclusions on interlocutory appeal
Whether the State’s interlocutory appeal is proper under Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 3	The State sought review to clarify Rule 2.2’s scope and officer authority on consensual encounters	McWilliams relied on the circuit court’s factual findings and suppression ruling	The Supreme Court held the appeal improper under Rule 3 because it raises application of law to facts, not a question of rule interpretation requiring uniform administration; appeal dismissed

Lewis v. State, 521 S.W.3d 466 (Ark. 2017) (describing three categories of police-citizen encounters and distinguishing consensual approach from investigatory stops)
State v. Brewster, 385 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2011) (discussing limits on State’s interlocutory appeals and difference between appeals by defendants and the State)
State v. Weatherspoon, [citation=""] (Ark. 2009) (court’s practice of accepting State appeals only where narrow legal interpretation questions with statewide effect exist)
Davis v. State, 94 S.W.3d 892 (Ark. 2003) (standard of review for suppression: de novo review, historical facts reviewed for clear error with due weight to trial court’s inferences)