Interesting case to come before Arkansas Supreme Court involving AGFC enforcement

[Quillback]

Qiuillback ------ being arrested for failure to identify has almost happened to me a time or two. If you talked ro me you would not know I was deaf. I have been stoped and when I told the cop I was deaf he gave me avery strange look. and would start asking me things and I would tell him again. I speak as clear as any of you do. Thats why I have a deaf sign in 3 in high letters on each side of my boat.

I could see where that would be a problem.

I'm not saying I support a law where you have to produce identity on demand, and can be arrested if you refuse. But that appears to be how it works in MO and Arkansas and some other states.

[Terrierman]

That's kinda like the deal where if you have never ever had a drivers license then you are legal to drive, but once you get one then you will ALWAYS have to have one for the rest of your life or you can't drive.

It's true.

What? Huh?

[Old plug]

I clearly support the law as it stands. But I know enough to think that if some legal clerk or lawyer found something in a book or court transcript somewhere that they just might to try to twist into a preceedant. Could be the lawyer doing the argument knew in his heart from the start he had no case. He gets PAID you know win or loose. Ethics is a selective matter of choice with some of those guys.

[hoglaw]

I clearly support the law as it stands. But I know enough to think that if some legal clerk or lawyer found something in a book or court transcript somewhere that they just might to try to twist into a preceedant. Could be the lawyer doing the argument knew in his heart from the start he had no case. He gets PAID you know win or loose. Ethics is a selective matter of choice with some of those guys.

I respect you a lot, but you're a little misguided here. This isn't an issue of creating a new law, or twisting something obscure from a "book" or a "court transcript."

If anyone wants to actually listen to the arguments (I don't know whether they have subtitling for hearing impaired viewers), here's the link. The hearing starts in 30 minutes at 8:58, but a ruling won't be issued today: https://courts.arkansas.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-videos

What you have to understand is this guy was convicted below, but the court of appeals has already overturned it. Now the Supreme Court is hearing it (at least that's what I took from the article). His argument as I understand it is that the officers' initial search and detention was without reasonable suspicion. Once that happens, any evidence obtained is the fruit of the poisonous tree and is inadmissible to convict him. I'm not sure what the argument will focus on. One possible argument is that it was his identity that led to his arrest, and they discovered that by him giving the officer his name, not by "illegally" checking the weapons.

As far as the lawyer for the defense, he took an oath to represent his client within the bounds of the law. It's unfair to criticize his ethics and call them "selective" when he is zealously representing his client, regardless of how unpopular the position may be. If you just want to decide right and wrong, then be a judge. If you want to represent your client's interest regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, then be a lawyer.

[hoglaw]

One thing I'll add is I admit I get a little overly sensitive about carte blanche lawyer comments. As a profession we certainly have reputation issues, and there are some bad apples no doubt. But on the whole, the lawyers and judges I work with are highly ethical people and work hard to do what's right. It's unfair to judge someone negatively for representing a bad criminal client. But for folks willing to take that work on (and many for very very little money), the system just doesn't work.

Let's say that a man punches his wife and breaks his arm, or a guy gets shot robbing a convenience store. Is the doctor who re-sets that arm or treats the gunshot wound an unethical doctor?

[mjk86]

One thing I'll add is I admit I get a little overly sensitive about carte blanche lawyer comments. As a profession we certainly have reputation issues, and there are some bad apples no doubt. But on the whole, the lawyers and judges I work with are highly ethical people and work hard to do what's right. It's unfair to judge someone negatively for representing a bad criminal client. But for folks willing to take that work on (and many for very very little money), the system just doesn't work.

Let's say that a man punches his wife and breaks his arm, or a guy gets shot robbing a convenience store. Is the doctor who re-sets that arm or treats the gunshot wound an unethical doctor?

Good point, nobody likes lawyers til they need one, in that case they are life savers. Same goes for cops. This is a very interesting case. I guess im a bit hypocritical in that I have always wanted the game wardens to check me for no reason, and welcomed it, however if a police officer wanted to search me for no reason id be furious. Maybe its because I am almost never checked by game wardens, they seem to be spread thin, yet where i live there are 3 bored police officers on every block getting paid to do whatever it is they do on their car computer. Fortunately i dont think (or maybe I hope) that the outcome of this will be a big game changer.

[Riverwhy]

I am meticulous about following game laws and I have never had a bad experience with a conservation agent. The probable cause before being searched and checked by an agent is a little fascinating.

I was at LOZ a couple of weeks ago and was going through the mid lake no wake zone along with another fifty or so boaters. There was a water patrol boat out there and I think we all felt like we were a school of baitfish and the water patrol was just waiting to strike. Sure enough his lights came on and they pulled over a boater that was on the outside of the "baitball of boats". I felt sorry for the fellow for his apparent random selection but was awfully glad we made it through the gauntlet without a 20 minute interrogation.

There is a nice special going on right now on the BBC about the Magna Carter (sp) and the importance it played in current democracies by making it unlawful to search someone without probable cause,

[dtrs5kprs]

Nothing negative to the sports of hunting/fishing is going to come of this.

The agents screwed their own pooch by testifying that they witnessed them for 2 hours without noticing them do anything wrong, THEN followed them back to their camp and proceeded to put them through a checkpoint (license, check magazine capacity, and overall search of their belongings). This IS unconstitutional THANK DOG!

At most all this will change is the reason for suspicion claims by the officers in the future. If they had just testified that they "thought one of them shot 4 times" or something like that then there would not be a case against them.

Cops have learned. They pull people over randomly all the time, but they just claim they "smelled something" or "they crossed the line" or "they thought they saw someone throw something out the window". Works every time.

As for the felon with a firearm....If we can't trust him with a gun out hunting then WHY IS HE NOT STILL IN PRISON?

Armed robbery is one thing but his felony may have been writing a 750.00 bad check, or maybe he sold some weed once when between jobs. Do we really assume that a guy convicted of THAT is likely to shoot someone if allowed to go hunting for food? Kinda ironic that he was the one complaint with his permit, plugged magazine and non-lead shot.

The officer developed "work arounds" are part of the danger. Once that starts happening we are very much at their mercy, and the his word or mine becomes worse.

The felon and firearm thing is an interesting issue. I've known folks who had been convicted of some of the less dangerous types of felonies you described, but were otherwise responsible citizens once they got past it. Maybe Kyle can chime in, but it seems like that might be the only right guaranteed under the federal constitution that can be revoked by the state. Maybe that and voting, if convicted of some sort of election fraud.

[hoglaw]

The officer developed "work arounds" are part of the danger. Once that starts happening we are very much at their mercy, and the his word or mine becomes worse.

The felon and firearm thing is an interesting issue. I've known folks who had been convicted of some of the less dangerous types of felonies you described, but were otherwise responsible citizens once they got past it. Maybe Kyle can chime in, but it seems like that might be the only right guaranteed under the federal constitution that can be revoked by the state. Maybe that and voting, if convicted of some sort of election fraud.

I still think you lose voting rights when you're convicted of any felony. That may not be correct. I don't do much criminal law anymore, though I did prosecute misdemeanors at one point.

You can lose other rights as a result of being on probation though. Your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures goes out the window if you're on probation or parole. You can be deprived of property without just compensation if it's civilly forefitted or confiscated. Can you still run for president as a convicted felon? There are probably a couple deprivations that happen in the criminal context.

[hoglaw]

Good point, nobody likes lawyers til they need one, in that case they are life savers. Same goes for cops. This is a very interesting case. I guess im a bit hypocritical in that I have always wanted the game wardens to check me for no reason, and welcomed it, however if a police officer wanted to search me for no reason id be furious. Maybe its because I am almost never checked by game wardens, they seem to be spread thin, yet where i live there are 3 bored police officers on every block getting paid to do whatever it is they do on their car computer. Fortunately i dont think (or maybe I hope) that the outcome of this will be a big game changer.

I feel the smae way on the stops. Personally I wish they could stop everyone who is hunting/fishing and check for compliance with all applicable regulations. I wish AGFC guys could get a little more leeway than normal law enforcement, but that leeway should only extend to folks they actually see hunting or fishing, or arriving at/leaving an area where they hunt/fish.

If I were one of the justices, here's how I'd decide the case. I would affirm his conviction. I believe that stopping him and checking his license/verifying his identity if he doesn't have it on him (which he didn't in this case, but he did have one) falls within an administrative stop. Just as DOT can stop any trucker, the Office of Long Term Care can inspect any nursing home, and the Department of Health can inspect any restaurant, Game and Fish should be able to verify that someone has a license and is legally hunting. I would hold that to go beyond that and physically inspect equipment/search belongings, the officer would have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. In this case, the officer violated his constitutional rights by searching his belongings with no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, even after they observed him for two hours. However, it was not that unlawful search that led to the discovery of his convicted felon status. The officer called in to verify that he had a license after contact was broken off, and went further by checking to see if there were active warrants. The officer was within his rights to do that, and used only information that he had obtained from the administrative functions of the stop. Once he verified the warrant, he went back and made the arrest and found methamphetamine on Mr. Pickle. So the convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance should be upheld. Even though there was an unlawful search, it did not result in the evidence that was used to convict him so it was not the fruit of the poisonous tree.

That's just my $.02. I think the court should probably reaffirm that folks don't shed their constitutional rights just because they go hunting or fishing, but in this case it was not the violation of his constitutional rights that led to his arrest and subsequent conviction. If the officer can't do anything without actually OBSERVING a violation, how are they ever going to enforce short fish, licensure, steel shot, gun plugs, or barbless hooks?