Jimmy Paul Pickle, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Danielson, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Danielson dissented from the majority's reversal of the denial of Pickle's suppression motion. He reasoned that brief, random compliance and safety checks by game wardens are constitutionally reasonable because hunting is highly regulated, hunters have a diminished expectation of privacy, and such checks are necessary to manage wildlife resources. Justice Goodson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would also affirm, but would distinguish permissible wildlife compliance checks from unrelated law-enforcement activity and conclude that the later database check was not a search or seizure.