Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Giving name/ID card to Police?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

    I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).

    My question is do you have the legal requirement to give a photo ID or other ID. My guess is not, but I have read stories of people being arrested for failing to give ID. Someday when I open carry in public (hopefully soon) I wish to know what I legally have to give to an officer when he hassles me. I will not give him my ID unless I am legally required to.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    There is considerable comment elsewhere on OCDO on just this question. I can't say from Wis. Statutes since I am still learning them and they are turgid.

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

    I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).
    I don't think so. Here is a report of an account by one of our members in VA and he didn't provide his name to investigating LEOs. Not his last name, anyway.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3671.html

    Apparently there were no adverse effects from what he did on that score.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    smithman wrote:
    I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

    I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).
    I don't think so. Here is a report of an account by one of our members in VA and he didn't provide his name to investigating LEOs. Not his last name, anyway.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/3671.html

    Apparently there were no adverse effects from what he did on that score.
    Unfortunatally Hank, this is Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a shall identify law. I don't remember the statute number and have yet to really look into it. I doubt it means that you are required to carry and produce ID upon demand, but I am reasonably sure that it means you must identify your self when asked by LEOs, in ANY situation.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    I am curious what you are legally required to tell/give to police officers if they ask you.

    I know that you must give your name if they ask you (this was a supreme court case).
    That would be the 5-4 Hiibel case and it applies opnly (1) if your state has a stop/ID law and even then (2) only in a Terry stop scenario where the LEO has reasonable articulable suspician thart you are doing somthing illegal, or about to, and, weirdly (3) the opinion holds out the possibility that a person might have a 5th amendment right to refuse (i.e., maybe you are wanted?). Anyway, I doubt WI has such a statute - if so, please show us.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I'll do the work if you'll give me a hint at where to start. I searched on "identification" and 465 hits in statutes and a tenth of that in acts but no where a description of the structure to give me an idea of which to read.

    It is clear to me that the LRB or whatever is zealously guarding its ricebowl.

  7. #7
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Unless something has been inserted somewhere other than the obstruction statute, it appears that in Wisconsin there is no general requirement to identify yourself.

    The Hiibel case had no effect in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Courtruled that mere refusal to identify onself to police is not obstruction of justice.

    Wisconsin statutes contain the following annotation to Ch. 946.41 (the obstruction statute):

    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, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

    A more detailed discussion is contained in this Madison Police Department "Legal Update":

    http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/P...mer%202004.pdf
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Shotgun, and all, thanks much. I searched and here is the PDF that refers to this statute 946.41---Page 5.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0946.pdf

    Is there a specific annotation dealing with photo ID that I am missing? This would depend if wisconsinites are required by law to have a state issued ID?

    Obstruction is a class A...same level as carrying concealed.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I was amused by Wis. Statute 946.31 and 946.32 effect on this 'discussion' http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/6346.html

    I'm gonna crosspost this to that.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    Shotgun, and all, thanks much. I searched and here is the PDF that refers to this statute 946.41---Page 5.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0946.pdf

    Is there a specific annotation dealing with photo ID that I am missing? This would depend if wisconsinites are required by law to have a state issued ID?

    Obstruction is a class A...same level as carrying concealed.
    Thanks for the pointer. How in Hades would one know to look here for a hypothetical exception to an Act or Statute on Identification?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    I will try to find my source that Wisconsin has a shall identify law. If I cannot, I must be mistaken that one exists, and rather quite happier for it. I would love to be disproved.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Suprisingly enough it was on wikipedia :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

    Wisconsin Statute 968.24 (page 10, right column):
    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

    So unfortunatally Shotgun, its not obstruction, its violation of another law. If they don't get you with one thing, they get you with another...

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    After perusing, contra studying, 968.24, it may be that the Wiki 'statement' may be a conclusion rather than a fact. That is a lot of law from which to conclude that there is a 'stop and identify' requirement.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

    968.24 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.

    History: 1993 a. 486.

    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
    103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).

    A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
    test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
    N.W.2d 386 (1989).

    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
    to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
    155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).

    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
    encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
    the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
    532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).

    When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
    stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
    App. 1991).

    A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
    often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
    impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
    (Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.

    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
    of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
    part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
    N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.

    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
    mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
    depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
    himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
    N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.

    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. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.

    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
    a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
    officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
    3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
    had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
    did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686.

    Under Florida v. J.L, an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
    bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
    the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
    aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
    be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
    2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.

    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
    phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
    1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
    if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
    regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
    the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
    an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
    that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
    Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.

    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
    at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
    criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
    Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
    could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
    risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
    State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.

    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
    of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
    2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.

    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
    public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
    police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
    entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
    enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
    N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.

    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
    that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
    belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
    but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
    a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
    to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
    675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.

    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
    in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
    so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
    159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
    real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
    would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
    a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
    reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
    against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
    County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
    necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
    a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
    v. Post, 2007 WI 60, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 05−2778.

    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.
    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution

  14. #14
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    In the Madison training bulliten it would appear on its face that the duty to identify on applies if you are a subject of a lawful Terry stop.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    And, sarcastically speaking of course, the Madistanian cops have never lept to a conclusion against the interests of citizens.

    Can you find a clear statement of an identification requirement in 968?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin does not have a stop identify statute!

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf:
    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. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
    But then neither is open carry mentioned as prohibited.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    This is curious.... does anybody have thoughts about this as well? If I read this right, a police officer can disarm you for questioning, while open carrying. Then you have to prove that you lawfully obtained your firearm to get it back on the spot, or risk being arrested??


    968.25 Search during temporary questioning. When a
    law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning
    pursuant to s. 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 or any instrument or
    article or substance readily capable of causing physical injury and
    of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons.
    If the law enforcement officer finds such a weapon or instrument,
    or any other property possession of which the law enforcement
    officer reasonably believes may constitute the commission
    of a crime, or which may constitute a threat to his or her safety, the
    law enforcement officer may take it and keep it until the completion
    of the questioning
    , at which time the law enforcement officer
    shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so
    questioned.


  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    This is curious.... does anybody have thoughts about this as well? If I read this right, a police officer can disarm you for questioning, while open carrying. Then you have to prove that you lawfully obtained your firearm to get it back on the spot, or risk being arrested??


    968.25 Search during temporary questioning. When a
    law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning
    pursuant to s. 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 or any instrument or
    article or substance readily capable of causing physical injury and
    of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons.
    If the law enforcement officer finds such a weapon or instrument,
    or any other property possession of which the law enforcement
    officer reasonably believes may constitute the commission
    of a crime, or which may constitute a threat to his or her safety, the
    law enforcement officer may take it and keep it until the completion
    of the questioning
    , at which time the law enforcement officer
    shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so
    questioned.
    Two comments IANAL

    'Reasonably' probably has a test and the word is 'possessed' and not 'obtained.'

    There are about two thousand words of 'annotations', stare decisis, previous decisions, case law that need to be evaluated. Wis Statutes are phucked to the max but they do incorporate case law.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Wisconsin does not have a stop identify statute!

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf:
    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. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
    But then neither is open carry mentioned as prohibited.
    What do you think a stop/identify statute is? I suggest reading Hiibel one more time.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    Suprisingly enough it was on wikipedia :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

    Wisconsin Statute 968.24 (page 10, right column):
    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

    So unfortunatally Shotgun, its not obstruction, its violation of another law. If they don't get you with one thing, they get you with another...
    Directly from the statues with case law (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. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98−0931."

    IANAL But I read this as follows: therefore if a police officer asks for your identification, in order to lawfully decline you must ask him if you are a suspect in a specific crime. If he says no, then you do not violate this statute. But as I read it he can still disarm you pursuant to 968.25 during the encounter.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, Hiibel is a SCOTUS decision?? And Wisconsin statutes are at issue. How does Hiibel affect/effect Wisc. Statutes?

    And our angst is moot if Good Citizens excuse the cops for an unlawful stop in exchange for not being cited.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    PK can you weigh in on this subject, while not providing legal advice. What measures does your department take regarding asking for names and identification?

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    does identification requireonly giving your name, or does it also require you to present some id card to prove you are telling the truth?

    if it only requires identifying one's self, perhaps printing up a business card with the bare minimum data on it is in order. then you would not even need to speak.

    LAC's really need to start exercising their rights not to be hassled by government agentsunless there actually is some reasonable cause to do so. And they ought to scream bloody murder after the fact when they are hassled without any reasonable cause. Enough irate calls to one's legislators, city councilmen, etc., and government agents will eventually get the idea.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    does identification requireonly giving your name, or does it also require you to present some id card to prove you are telling the truth?

    if it only requires identifying one's self, perhaps printing up a business card with the bare minimum data on it is in order. then you would not even need to speak.
    Here is the summary of what we have found in this thread.

    Per 968.24 with case law footnotes:
    I interpret that if a police officer asks for your identification, in order to lawfully decline you must ask him if you are a suspect in a specific crime. If he says no, then you do not violate this statute by not giving him identification. (State vs. Griffith, 2000). If anybody else comes across something regarding identification specifically please post it.

    However, only if you are being detained (temporary questioning without arrest as the title) you must give him your name or face criminal penalites. Criminal penalties here is not percisely defined, though you cannot be charged with obstruction (see next...). (Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004)

    Per 946.41
    with case law footnotes:
    You cannot be arrested specifically for obstruction for not giving a Police officer your name. (Henes vs. Morrissey 1995). This is good since this is a Class A Mis.

    Based on the differentiation in the statues of "identification" and "name" I conclude that these are separate things. Note the notes in the statute do not require you to give your address or county of residence!

    So based on the above information if you are being detained, you are required to give your name, but nothing else! If you are OC'ing then you are likely being detained if a Police officer initiates contact. You can test this by asking if you are free to go.

    PK can you weigh in on this....how does your department generally handle the intricacies of these laws?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Chronology

    1993 - last amendment to 946.41 except for 2001

    1993 - last amendment to 968.24

    1995 - Henes v. Morrissey

    2001 - last amendment to 946.41; however not relevant to this question

    2004 - Hiibel v. Sixth...

    Summer 2004 - MPD Legal Update that was quoted

    Analysis

    1. Hiibel permits but does not require a state to have a law like Nevada's. In other words, such a statute is not violative of the U.S. Constitution. Such a statute may be a violation of a state constitution. In Wisconsin, this has not be definitively answered because there is no equivalent state law. If such comes into existence then the Wisconsin Supreme Court would probably rule on the (state) constitutionality.

    2. WSC, which is the final arbiter of state law said in Henes that

    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, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

    Presumably the WSC is aware of all state statutes. If 968.24 had be relevant, they would have said so. As pointed out, that statute permits a LEO "to demand" but says nothing about the citizen's obligation to provide or any penalties for failing to do so. Thus, as the MPD materials states, unless and until there is additional legislation, Hiibel doesn't mean squat in Wisconsin. MPD does misstep in that, as mentioned, Hiibel is a decision based upon the U.S. Constitution. Even if such a law is passed it may fail the test of the Wisconsin state constitution. The MPD apparently doesn't understand this distinction. (It is similar to the Kelo decision, which simply said that the U.S. Constitution was not offended by the actions of the local government. In fact, many states are passing legislation or constitutional amendments to neutralize Kelo.)

    Remember that all of these issues take place in the context of a Terry Stop, whether or not the encounter is specifically labeled as such.

    With regard to frisking for weapons, the same standard applies but as to the reasonable suspicion must be that the citizen is armed and dangerous. In a place where CC is always illegal, RS of being armed is enough. But that would apply only in situations where concealed carry is lawful. Wisconsin is somewhat muddled now because although CC is generally unlawful, Hamdan provides an exception. Of course, the only way to demonstrate falling under the exception is through a trial. I don't think a LEO, even if he was inclined to do so, is permitted to run the Hamdan tests and come to a conclusion. But please feel free to try it. If anybody feels I have erred in my analysis, please post a (polite, thoughtful) reply.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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