Tyler James Love v. Municipality of Anchorage

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Tyler James Love,
Petitioner,
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
Respondent.
Court of Appeals No. A-13996
Order
Petition for Review
Date of Order: June 28, 2022
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-20-07285CR
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
Tyler James Love, who is awaiting trial on municipal charges, petitions this
Court for review of the district court’s April 11, 2022 order denying his request to
modify his bail conditions to remove electronic monitoring.1 Because we agree with
Love that this condition is not among the least restrictive conditions necessary to
reasonably ensure the protection of the victim and the community, we reverse the district
court’s order and direct the district court to remove the electronic monitoring condition.
The Municipality of Anchorage has charged Love by information with three
misdemeanor charges: 	(1) assault,2 (2) unlawful use or possession of firearms,3 and
(3) family violence (i.e., committing an assault in the presence of a child).4 The charges
stem from an incident that took place on September 17, 2020.
1 See Isadore v. State, 378 P.3d 406, 407 (Alaska App. 2016) (holding that an out
of-custody defendant is entitled to petition for review of a trial court’s bail decision).
2 Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 08.10.010(B)(1).
3 AMC 08.25.030(A)(2).
4 AMC 08.10.050(B).

Love v. Anchorage - p. 2
File No. A-13996
June 28, 2022
According to the charging document, Love, who was estranged from his
nt to M.L.’s house while he was heavily intoxicated “to have sex with her
After having sex with M.L., Love asked her if she had been cheating on
wife, M.L., we
one last time.”
him, and, when she said that she had, he punched her multiple times on the left side of
her face. He then put his hand around her neck and shoved her up against a wall. Their
young children were inside the house while this was happening. Love then went to a gun
safe, took out a handgun, and stated that he was going to kill himself. Shortly thereafter,
Love was apprehended by police.
Love, who has no criminal history, was arraigned the next day, on
September 18, 2020. A risk assessment by the Pretrial Enforcement Division found that
Love had a “New Criminal Arrest” score of 1 — i.e., that he presented a low risk of
committing a new offense. 	At the hearing, defense counsel submitted an electronic
monitoring proposal. The court ultimately released Love without any monetary bail and
ordered that, as conditions of release, Love could have no direct or indirect contact with
M.L., could not be within 500 feet of M.L.’s residence, and was required to remain on
house arrest with electronic monitoring.
Nearly a year later, on August 18, 2021, the court modified Love’s bail
conditions at his request, removing the house arrest condition but maintaining the
requirement that Love submit to electronic location monitoring. 	The court also
continued the exclusion zone around M.L.’s residence. The court noted that Love and
M.L. 	appeared 	to 	be 	appropriately 	proceeding 	through 	their 	pending 	divorce
proceedings.
Seven months later, Love asked the court to modify his bail conditions to
remove electronic monitoring. At a hearing on April 11, 2022, the assistant municipal

Love v. Anchorage - p. 3
File No. A-13996
June 28, 2022
prosecutor argued that the court should not modify Love’s bail conditions, stating that
the facts of the offense raised “red flags” related to domestic violence, particularly
Love’s choking of M.L. and his threats of suicide. When the court asked M.L. for her
position on Love’s request, she neither supported nor opposed the request, instead
responding, “I’m just kind of here to listen.”
The district court declined to modify Love’s bail conditions to remove
electronic monitoring. The court acknowledged that, in setting bail conditions, it was
required to consider the protection of the public and the victim. The court stated that,
based on the complaint, it saw several “red flags” related to domestic violence,
specifically the presence of firearms and Love’s threats to kill himself. The court stated
it was denying Love’s request “in an abundance of caution.”
Love now petitions this Court for review. 	Love argues that electronic
monitoring constitutes a serious burden on a person’s liberty and privacy. He argues that
electronic monitoring was not the least restrictive condition or among the least restrictive
set of conditions necessary to reasonably ensure M.L.’s safety. 	The Municipality of
Anchorage has filed a notice of no response — in essence taking no position on this
petition.
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees the right to
pretrial bail release. 	Consistent with this right, AS 12.30.011(b) requires a court to
impose the least restrictive condition or conditions on pretrial bail release that will
reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and
the community.
We agree with the district court that the facts of the offense support its
concern for M.L.’s safety. But electronic monitoring places a burden on a defendant’s

________________________________
Love v. Anchorage - p. 4
File No. A-13996
June 28, 2022
liberty and privacy (and, for those defendants subject to monitoring by a private
electronic monitoring company, their finances as well). Love has no criminal history,
and the parties agreed at the April 11, 2022 hearing that, since his release on September
18, 2020, Love has not violated any of his bail conditions. Love has appeared personally
or through counsel at all court hearings. Additionally, at the bail hearings, M.L. has not
opposed Love’s requests to gradually ease the bail restrictions.
While the district court correctly stated that it was required to consider the
protection of the public and M.L. when setting bail conditions, the court did not refer to,
and does not appear to have been implicitly applying, the requirement that the bail
condition at issue be the least restrictive condition, or among the least restrictive set of
conditions, necessary to reasonably ensure the protection of the victim and the
community. Having reviewed the record, including the history of Love’s bail release in
this case, we conclude that electronic monitoring is not among the least restrictive set of
conditions necessary to reasonably ensure the safety of M.L. and the community.
We accordingly grant Love’s petition, REVERSE the district court’s order,
and remand with directions to remove the electronic monitoring condition.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk

Love v. Anchorage - p. 5
File No. A-13996
June 28, 2022
cc: 	Judge Nesbett
Trial Court Clerk - Anchorage
Distribution:
Email:
Fink, Joshua P.
Stanley, Sarah E.