Opinion ID: 2632232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards of Review and Summary of Issues

Text: We decide de novo how to construe the Alaska and federal Constitutions, and Alaska statutes, adopting rules of law that best reflect precedent, reason, and policy. [4] We review summary judgments de novo. If there is no genuine dispute of material fact, we will affirm if the undisputed facts entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. [5] Waiste does not claim a dispute of material fact, only that the State is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We view the facts in the best light for the nonmovant here, Waisteand draw all reasonable inferences in Waiste's favor. [6] There are two periods in which the State may have violated Waiste's rights or taken his property without compensation. The first period is between the July 11, 1992, seizure and the July 14 postseizure hearing. Waiste argues that the ex parte seizure violated due process and is compensable as a taking, or subject to damages in a Bivens [7] -type claim, under the Alaska Constitution. The second period is between Waiste's September 1992 acquittal on the criminal charge and the State's June 1993 abandonment of its civil forfeiture action. Waiste advances three theories supporting his right to recover compensation or damages for that period: (1) the statute governing seizure of fishing gear required the State to return his boat at the end of the criminal case, making its retention thereof a conversion; (2) the State's pursuit of a forfeiture claim violated the Alaska Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause; and alternatively, (3) even if the State did not violate Waiste's rights, it took his property by retaining his boat and owes him compensation therefor.