AR: Wildlife officers’ detention of defendant was without reasonable suspicion

A Game and Fish Commission wildlife officer’s investigation into whether defendant was complying with the hunting laws, even if authorized [the court of appeals said it wasn’t: Pickle v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 726, 453 S.W.3d 157], continued on too long without reasonable suspicion and led to a search of his vehicle. The administrative search rationale was implicitly rejected. Pickle v. State, 2015 Ark. 286, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 496 (June 25, 2015):

Even assuming, but not deciding, that it was appropriate for the officers to conduct a search absent a reasonable, articuable suspicion, the evidence used to charge Pickle of possession of a firearm, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia, was adduced by the officers after they had completed any inquiry into Pickle’s compliance with state and federal regulations pertaining to the harvest of waterfowl. In fact, Aston admitted that it was his “personal protocol” to conduct a warrant check. Thus, Aston’s exploration of Pickle’s criminal past and the subsequent search of his person went far beyond the scope of any administrative search conducted for the purpose of investigating Pickle’s compliance with hunting laws. See State v. Baldwin, 124 N.H. 770, 475 A.2d 522 (N.H. 1984) (holding that even if fish and game officers had requisite power to conduct road check to determine compliance with fish and game laws, questioning driver about whether she had any weapons clearly exceeded scope of any permissible road check to determine compliance with fish and game laws). In this sense, the case is similar to those in which we have observed that an officer’s continued detention of a motorist’s vehicle after the legitimate purpose for the initial traffic stop has terminated requires the officer to possess reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor involving danger to persons or property, as the officer must develop reasonable suspicion to detain before the legitimate purpose of the traffic stop has ended. Lilley v. State, 362 Ark. 436, 208 S.W.3d 785 (2005).

Pickle has argued on appeal that he was unlawfully detained and unlawfully searched in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 15, of the Arkansas Constitution because the game wardens had neither a warrant nor a reasonable suspicion of any violation of law. Here, even assuming that the officers properly conducted an investigation into Pickle’s compliance with hunting laws, that investigation had concluded. Nevertheless, the officers began a criminal investigation, seeking information to determine whether Pickle was a felon, a matter unrelated to Pickle’s compliance with hunting laws, and on discovering that he was a felon, returned to the area and arrested and searched Pickle. On these facts, we cannot say that, prior to the completion of their investigation into Pickle’s compliance with hunting laws, the officers developed reasonable suspicion that Pickle had committed a crime. Thus, we agree with Pickle’s argument and hold that, on our de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, the facts presented in this case did not give rise to reasonable suspicion allowing officers to conduct a criminal investigation.