Pickle v. State

¶1concurring.

¶2hi agree with the majority that this case should be reversed and remanded. I write separately to express my belief that game wardens may perform hunting-and-safety compliance checks without reasonable suspicion or explicit, neutral limitations. However, I believe that after a compliance check has been completed, any additional encounter must be based upon an explicit, neutral limitation as required by State v. Allen,1 in order to prevent game wardens from relying on their own unbridled discretion. Therefore, I concur.

¶3Gruber, J., joins in this concurrence.