Interesting case to come before Arkansas Supreme Court involving AGFC enforcement

[Old plug]

Hoglaw----- You have injected a lot more into it. I will try to follow it on the internet. I am no lawyer. But I worked on some complex things concerning WW 11 in the philippines. If ever see you and I am sure they would be very interesting to you. The provlem started with the philipine Independence act in 1934 and was run thru courts and used by politician over and over again all they way to at least 1995 when I retired from Civil Service. I would not repeat some of the stuff I seen on a public forum. The JAG we had where I worked at one time did not want to write his on background and just threw the blank legal pad on the table and walked out. He was not a good lawyer. They had some problems with him and the way they got rid of him get him a job as a administrative Judge. So I do not mean to have a attitude about Lawyers but have delt with serveral real jerks goverment lawyers.

[fishinwrench]

So this is when they draaaaag it out with as many appearances as possible, bleed Pickle dry on attorney fees, and force him into a plea agreement.

[hoglaw]

So this is when they draaaaag it out with as many appearances as possible, bleed Pickle dry on attorney fees, and force him into a plea agreement.

Not exactly. He got convicted below. As a convicted felon with a gun and meth, I'm guessing the sentence involved time. He may have even pled to it already subject to this appeal. If it was me, no amount of money would be too much if I were looking at pen time. And if I got my conviction overturned, then it would be the best money I ever spent. Also, his attorney may have been court appointed meaning he wouldn't pay him anyway other than a minimal access fee ($100 or so).

But maybe he did have a private attorney. In either case, I assure you the system isn't set up so that they can go to court more times and make more money off of him.

FF, I think the judge you're referring to is Josephine Linker Hart. She is indeed very sharp. Our state supreme court judges are elected, so you can get some "less qualified" judges on the bench that way. For the most part, the nine that sit on our court are pretty good. In the federal system the judges are appointed. Most would look at that and think that political favors result in appointments, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. Their appointment is for life, so they don't have to scratch anyone's back to keep their job. Most federal trial and appellate judges are incredibly intelligent.

[Feathers and Fins]

Kyle, she is a very sharp lady, if I ever went before a Judge and she was the one I would be thankful seems she uses common since to the law and that seems missing in so many aspects of life.

Her questions were excellent and to the point and her knowledge of other cases and the questions to them were also spot on. I also think she is the kind of judge to make suggestions to legislator to make things less intrusive and better. I think AGFC may want to listen to her suggestions.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Most would look at that and think that political favors result in appointments, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. Their appointment is for life, so they don't have to scratch anyone's back to keep their job. Most federal trial and appellate judges are incredibly intelligent.

Maybe the scratching, or what have you, comes before the appointment.

[hoglaw]

Just wanted to bring this one home. The opinion came down this morning, and you can access it here:

http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?startid=40626

The case is Pickle v. State, so click that PDF file if you want to read it. Bottom line, this was not a very good decision, and it was 4-3. The court ducked having to decide the most important (to me) issue - whether a game warden can lawfully stop anyone engaged in hunting or fishing to check compliance with applicable regulations. The court "assumed" that it was proper for the AGFC to check for compliance, but that calling in a warrants check went too far when the officers had no reasonable suspicion that a violation had occurred.

My problem with the opinion is that the warrants check was conducted outside of the presence of Mr. Pickle, and was conducted with information that the officers had lawfully obtained during their encounter. This is what Justice Goodson said in her opinion. Justice Danielson's dissent (disagreeing opinion) pointed to the bigger issue of wheter a game warden can stop to check licenses, etc., without observing a violation, and said: "After reading the majority opinion, I have no idea whether game wardens are allowed to conduct the routine compliance checks that I believe are necessary in order for them to carry out their official duties."

I don't say this wasn't a good decision because it got to the wrong result, but because the court still hasn't told us whether game wardens can stop folks to check licenses and equipment unless they've actually witnessed a violation.

[Feathers and Fins]

All I can say after reading it is this. Another case will come before them again about this exact same issue and they will be forced sooner or later to rule on if a Game and Fish officer is entitled without probable cause or warrant to "Detain" a person without probable cause of a crime being committed.

Personally I believe the Defence attorney screwed up when the Judge asked him if Hunting is a "RIGHT or PRIVLEDGE" had he answered it is a RIGHT under the Arkansas Constitution the judges may well have had to answer the question as the detention is a violation of a persons right. Though it may not seem like much to some that distinction may well be the deciding factor in the next case.

Though I believe it was a good ruling as I am sure had Pickle shown up to court to pay his fine someone would have caught him being a felon in possession. I believe the courts could have finally defined the AGFC Wardens authorities but they chose not to and why is beyond me it would save time and money in the future.

[Feathers and Fins]

Oh and just thought of something, Kyle if Pickle wishes to proceed with this he still has the option of Higher courts doesn't he?

[hoglaw]

He won't proceed because this was a favorable ruling for him. The court reversed his conviction. Had they upheld it he could have appealed to the us supreme court, but it is highly unlikely they would hear it.

[Feathers and Fins]

Gotcha, to bad just left the door open for another person to have to go through it. If this gets enough publicity im sure some attorney will.

But hey I try to use common since and just seemed since able for the courts to put it to bed once and for all.