State v. Hintze
State v. Hintze, 2025 UT App 82 (Tenney, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress based on his argument that he had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment before he gave his name to officers.
- Practice tip: In determining whether an officer’s actions equate to a Fourth Amendment seizure, courts review several circumstances including: (1) presence of multiple armed and uniformed officers, (2) positioning of the officers’ bikes, and (3) the nature of the questioning.