concurring.
[¶ 17] I write separately to note that the majority’s somewhat truncated statement of our standard of review at ¶ 7 does not reflect a change from the standard of review established by City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994), and set forth more fully in the majority-cited opinion, State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 19-20, 615 N.W.2d 515:
When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). We affirm the district court’s decision unless we conclude there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision, or unless the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence. City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994).
“Although the underlying factual disputes are findings of fact, whether the findings meet a legal standard, in this instance a reasonable and articulable suspicion, is a question of law.” Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d at 774 (citations omitted). Questions of law are fully reviewable. Id. (citing State v. Glaesman, 545 N.W.2d 178 (N.D.1996)). The ultimate conclusion of whether the facts support a reasonable and articulable suspicion is fully reviewable on appeal. State v. Hawley, 540 N.W.2d 390, 392 (N.D.1995).
[¶ 18] DALE V. SANDSTROM