What statute were you looking at?Originally Posted by weston502
946.41 http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/946/IV/41 covers "resisting or obstructing"
From what's written, both have to be deliberate acts, actively doing something to make the cop's life difficult.
And the officer has to be "doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority".
Reading the citations at the end of each statute can be very informative.
Here's a WI Supreme Court decision:
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name.
Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
Henes v. Morrissey, 1995
There's also 968.24 http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/968/24
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances.Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.
Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
WI v. Griffith (2000)
Which leads to
Notice that being armed does not automatically equal other people being in danger of physical injury.968.25 Search during temporary questioning.
When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning pursuant to 968.24 and reasonably suspects that he or she or another is in danger of physical injury, the law enforcement officer may search such person for weapons
Exercising a civil right (remaining silent) is not and can never be a crime.
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S. (SCOTUS)
And from one of our courts of appeal:
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer, 1997
These 3 are from different US district courts, so it's a widespread precident. Here's the Volok post talking about them.
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley (2009)
(also known as St. John v. Alamogordo, settled in the US district court for NM)
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
U.S. v. Ubiles (2000)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
U.S. v. King (1993)