Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Disorderly Conduct

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I have not yet had a chance to read these two cases, which were provided to me by somebody else, but here are the cites and the synopsis by somebody else for your review.



    State v. Raven, 232 Wis 2d 559, Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct for having a firearm in her hand in her own residence, not pointed at anyone, after officers drew on her and commanded her to drop her weapon, which she refused to do.



    Nicholas v State, 49 Wis 2d 683, a witness testifies that he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, but the state reduced the charge to disorderly conduct because his weapon was not concealed.





    :shock:

    As I said, I have not yet read them, but I thought people here might want to know about them.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I guess I should add that these are from a source I trust, so I m not just posting them here without some confidence that he is correct, even though I have yet to read the cases cited. Maybe he will chime in here later.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    I guess I should add that these are from a source I trust, so I m not just posting them here without some confidence that he is correct, even though I have yet to read the cases cited. Maybe he will chime in here later.
    I can't turn down a great invitation like that.

    More on Raven case: Defendant called 911 but then hung up. Officers arrived and she said she was "withdrawing" her call, which had been made because she heard noise next door in what was supposed to be a vacant residence. As she walked farther back into her own residence, officers notices she had something in her hand and asked what it was. She showed them it was a handgun (without pointing it at them). They drew on her and commanded her to drop it, which she refused to do.

    The court of appeals affirmed her conviction for disorderly conduct. She also was convicted of commiting a crime while in possession of a firearm, which is a penalty enhancing statute. This was in Dane County.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    I have nothing more on the Nicholas case, as that really was quoted in the opinion from a transcript.

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    jrm wrote:
    She showed them it was a handgun (without pointing it at them). They drew on her and commanded her to drop it, which she refused to do.
    :what:

    Wow, she's got some BIG ones!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Huge and brass!

    I should mention that she did put down her gun after the third command at gun point, but I do not believe that diminishes the awesome gravity of her stones.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Could that distinguish the case from your typical peacable Wisconsincitizen with an openly carried pistol in a holster taking a Sunday stroll with the dog?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Maybe if there were such a typical Wisconsinite. I don't think there is.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    What are the full names of Raven and Nicholas. These cases do not appear in any of the circuit court of appeals, Supreme Court decisions or in the archives of Find Law or Wis Bar association. They appear to be local circuit court judgements that had they been appealed to the circuit court of appeals or the supreme court would more than likely have been overturned. I have spent days researching all circuit court of appeals and state supreme court judgements back to 1995. can find no record of any charges of disorderly conduct with firearms being upheld when appealed to those courts. It is futile to reseach farther back than 1995 because the addition of Article 1 chapter 25 to the state constitution changed "all the rules of the game" concerning carry of firearms. If I overlooked some significant cases I certainly want to know about it.

    In the case of Raven the disorderly conduct charge more than likely was not because she was carrying a firearm, but because she refused to obey the policemen's orders(twice). read the state statute on disorderly conduct. Refusal to obey a peace officers orders is cause for a charge of disorderly conduct.

    The Nicholas case appears to be a case were a person was charged with violation of state statute 941.23 for carrying a concealed weapon and because of extenuating circumstances plea bargained down to a lesser charge. That of disorderly conduct being the most convienient.

    These are just presumptions on my part. Send me the full names of the participants so I can search and read the court decisions. As I said I want to have my facts straight on this disorderly conduct "boogeyman" that seems to be concerning us more than it should.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Raven's first name is Lee. The cite to that case is contained in MP's original post. It is an unpublished decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

    There is case law in WI that refusal to obey a LEO's order is not, by itself, DO. But, read the Raven case for yourself and see what you think.

    By the way, the court names in WI are opposite what they are in federal court. The trial level courts are called "circuit courts," and the intermediate appellate courts are "district courts." So, there is nothing in WI called a circuit court of appeals. It is a circuit court (the county trial-level court of general jurisdiction) or a district court (of appeals).

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I stand corrected on the court names. The court of appeals is not circuit court of appeals or district court of appeals. It is just plain court of appeals.

    Lee Raven is quite a character between 1997 and 2006 she was in court 9 times. Civil and criminal. In one case specifically for DC because she got in an argument in a drug store over a prescription in which she became unruly. The case we are discussing took place in 1999. The case number is court of appeals case number 99-1576-CR dated Dec. 9 1999. Paragraphs of specific interest are 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19.
    The court ruling can be found at http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/z1999/99-1576.htm

    Raven was not charged with Disorderly Conduct because of the firearm. She was specifically charged for Disorderly Conduct for her conduct and refusing to obey a police officer. She refused the order to drop her gun four times. She had a documented history of dislike for one of the arresting officers. She was entirely uncooperative. Finally she made threats that she was going to kill the person next door that was upsetting her because he/she kept dropping the toilet seat.

    The charge related to the firearm was a citation for violation of statute 939.63(1)(a) Use of a dangerous weapon.

    Raven is a person of very dubious nature. She has a history of dislike for the court system, law enforcement, and whites. She has been in courts for criminal and civil crimes nine times in the last nine years. She is hardly the epitome of a law abiding citizen peacefully carrying a visible firearm for personal protection.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    I disagree. There is case law in WI saying that disobeying an officer is not disorderly conduct. Raven even cited that law in her appeal. The court of apepals rejected her argument because she was carrying a gun. There also is case law that comments made only to the police (and not other members to the public) cannot constitute disorderly conduct. So, her "threat" to kill whoever was making that noise, which was made only to the police, also would not constitute disorderly conduct. While she may not be a model citizen, her conviction was affirmed because she was carrying a gun.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Please read case #02-4413 Braun v Baldwin which was heard and decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Robert Braun was cited by deputy frank Franckoviak for disorderly conduct because Braun refused to follow Franckoviaks order. The Court found that the citation was proper. The Court also stated within the text of the judgement that it's opinion that disobeying a peace officers lawful order does constitute disorcerly conduct is a repeat of it's decision in the case of Ryan v County of DuPage.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Found it -- It's case number 02-4143, by the way, reported at 346 F.3d 761.

    Several aspects of Bruan make it inapplicable. First, it was an appellate court reviewing grant of summary judgment in a civil case, being called upon to decide if there was probable cause to arrest. Probable cause is a much lower standard than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard needed to convict. And, in a civil rights case for false arrest, the standard is even lower -- arguable probable cause. It is important to note that the defendant never was tried or even formally charged. The court even observed that the decision was a close one with respect to probable cause -- indicating that conviction was unlikely.

    More importantly, however, the court noted that others in the courthouse overheard the commotion, which is one of the requirements in WI's DO statute. And, the defendant did not only refuse an officer's command. He refused to explain his conduct, which included photographing the officer and refusing to move. The court was keen to show its stern disapproval of courthouse lobby displays of scorn for judges and the justice system and told Milwuakee County in dicta that it should run the rascals out of the courthouse.

    The court said, "Braun arguing with a police officer, taking photographs of the officer, refusing to explain what he was doing-and this against the background of Currier's disruptive, or at least distracting, impersonation of a judge and the rumor of a disturbance. In these unusual circumstances, we think the officer was within his rights to order Braun to step aside." It made clear that the situation was unusual, justifying the order.

    So, I don't think Braun stands for the proposition that disobedience of a LEO's orders constitutes DO. Rather, it stands for the proposition that courhouses are non-public fora, and the activities and displays within them can be rather tightly controlled by the government.

    While the government may control (and therefore give orders about) what happens in a courthouse, I do not believe the same control applies to a citizen in her own home. Certainly an order from the police to Raven to step aside would not have merited arrested.



    Ryan County v. DuPage appears to be about a first amendment challenge to a prohibition against wearing masks in court. Again, it is about control of courthouse activity.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    jrm, would you openly carry a firearm in Wisconsin asa means of demonstration?

    How about for personal protection?





  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Depends on the circumstances, of course.

    I have done the latter.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    If you read The Wisconsin disorderly conduct statute 947.01 you will find that the case of Braun v Baldwin is referenced in the Annotations to the statue. It reads:
    "Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful". Braun v Baldwin 346 F3d 761(2003).

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Good example of why you can't rely on annotations.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I don't know how much legal experience you have had, if any, but annotations to statutes are very important, They serve as interpretations of theintent of the statute and are used by the courts as a basis for it's judgements.

    I don't know what your point is on all this other than to just prolong the controversy. In any regard this will be my last comment on the topic.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    My point is simple:

    Raven was convicted of disorderly conduct, in large part because she carried a firearm.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    If you read The Wisconsin disorderly conduct statute 947.01 you will find that the case of Braun v Baldwin is referenced in the Annotations to the statue. It reads:
    "Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful". Braun v Baldwin 346 F3d 761(2003).
    The annotation may or may not be an accurate reflection of what the case actually said. I am not commenting on this particular annotationor thisparticular case, but I have found lots and lots of annotations that are just plain wrong when one goes to the actual case to read it.

  22. #22
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    jrm wrote:
    My point is simple:

    Raven was convicted of disorderly conduct, in large part because she carried a firearm.


    I understood Raven was holding the gun in her hand and waiving it around, and refused to put it down when ordered to do so. The Raven situation is quite a stretch of logic and reason to apply to someone with a holstered firearm.





  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    In response to inquiries, I cited two cases where it appeared a defendant was convicted of DO for carrying. If no one believes those defendants were convicted primarily because they were carrying, that's okay. What I don't understand, however, is if everybody is convinced that no one ever has been convicted of DO for open carrying, why is nobody here posting that they open carry?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    jrm wrote:
    . . .why is nobody here posting that they open carry?
    It is a good question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •