Followup on Game Wardens and State Supreme Court ruling
Ruling worries agency chief
Hunter background checks important for safety, he says
By Spencer Willems
This article was published today at 4:15 a.m.
The head of the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission told lawmakers Monday that, barring a rehearing at the state Supreme Court, he will support game wardens using their discretion when doing criminal background checks on some hunters encountered in the field.
Mike Knoedl, director of the commission, told the Arkansas Legislative Council's Game & Fish subcommittee that his agency has asked for a rehearing after a June 25 ruling. That decision overturned the 2013 arrest of a hunter who was found to be a felon in possession of a weapon after game wardens ran his name through a national criminal database.
Knoedl said that though it's not common to run criminal record checks and game wardens usually encounter hunters who appear to be aboveboard, it's in the interest of "officer safety" to be able to run a warrant check.
"What we got our hands slapped for [by the Arkansas Supreme Court], was, they said ... we carried the investigation a step further when we ran a [criminal record] check," Knoedl said.
"What they're telling us is they have to do something wrong before you figure something out," he added.
Knoedl said that it's not just game wardens, but other law enforcement officials who have a vested interest in being able to run names through criminal databases during routine duties.
"I'll never take that discretion away [from an officer] until the U.S. Supreme Court tells me I can't," Knoedl said after the meeting. "I think you're asking for trouble."
Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, told Knoedl that the commission's tradition of checks and searches without probable cause gave her much concern.
"I'm always concerned about protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of our citizens. ... I concurred with the court. If you did not have reasonable cause to stop someone or reasonable suspicion, why did you stop them?" she said after the meeting. "Having come up in a country where driving while black is something I've had to deal with all of my life, I'm always especially cautious when people say we don't know if you've committed a crime but it looks like you have."
Added Chesterfield: "I was concerned when the director said that we may have to ignore that ruling."
The discussion centered on the case of Jimmy Pickle, who in 2014 saw his 2012 search by game wardens tossed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals for being a violation of his constitutional rights.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court ruled that Pickle, who had a valid hunting license and gave game wardens no cause to confront him, was arrested after the wardens ran his name through a criminal database and found that he was a felon and barred from using a gun. They then found drugs on him.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the wardens' compliance check with Pickle constituted a search and that they had no right to do so if they had not witnessed any suspicious or criminal activity.
In June, the Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling and, in a split opinion, ruled that when wardens ran Pickle's name through the database, they had no probable cause to do so and that the search was unconstitutional.
The court, as pointed out by Justice Paul Danielson, didn't answer whether or not the routine hunting compliance checks were constitutional.
Since the Court of Appeals decision, Knoedl said his wardens have stopped the years-old tradition of random compliance checks.
He told lawmakers that his commission is putting policies together that will encourage game wardens to continue the checks, but that they will have to submit plans in writing ahead of time -- for example, to do a check for every other hunting party -- so as to not be "arbitrarily" searching people.
He also said that though he encourages game wardens to use criminal background checks despite the Supreme Court's ruling, he is also putting together a policy that would require a warden to be able to "articulate" a cause or reason for feeling the need to do so.
Sen. Jon Woods, R-Springdale, said that the issue is an important one and that he thinks the Supreme Court needs to rehear the case in order to give game wardens, and lawmakers, more clear direction.
