Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: An uplifting story

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    My sister in law was over tonight and she is a dispatcher for the City of Burlington police department. She tells me that about two months ago they got a call about a man with gun walking down the street. Officers responded, guns not drawn, and ASKED if they could speak with the man. He agreed, and they asked him a couple of questions and asked for ID. He complied, gave them ID, they said have a nice day and off he went, into the sunset, with his gun on his hip.

    It would appear the LEOs of the City of Burlington are a class act compared to some of their brethren in other communities. I am going to get all the details of the stop in the next few days and share them with you. There is hope.

    Max

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

    Post imported post

    Not perfect, but better than what we've come to expect in some jurisdictions! Maybe there is hope. The details could be interesting.

    The Burlington police department website contains the following "purpose statement:"

    "Our purpose and why we exist is to build trust, reduce crime, and see justice is served, while being a valuable resource to our community. To defend citizens Constitutional Rights and protect people from harm."

    So perhaps they take the "defend Constitutional Rights" portion of that seriously. Or maybe that individual just was lucky to get the right LEOs on the scene. Unfortunately Burlington is one of those municipalities that continues to carry a preempted ordinance on the books:

    "Except as provided in Subsection B(3), it shall be unlawful for any person to go armed with any firearm on or about his or her person within the City of Burlington, unless the firearm is both unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case."
    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"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    I do not think it was luck as I exchanged emails with the chief of the City of Burlington last summer and he told me if I open carry, expect the police to investigate, they will ask to see your hands and ask for ID. " I am confident if you obey the officers investigating the complaint you will have no problems."







  4. #4
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Well that's good! However I question the "your papers please" request.
    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"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    Incremental changes, one step at a time. My local LEOs asking for ID is low on my priority list in regards to open carry. The fact that I can carry without fear of arrest and all the hassle that goes with it and a civil suit is great news to me.... for now.

    We should have an award for "Constitution Friendly" communities. My domino theory is you can take a community that is constitution friendly and use their policy as an example to neighboring communities as to what they should do as well to protect civilian rights and protect themselves from civil suits. It can't hurt.

    Like Brad Krause said, we all need to do what we can to move the ball forward in our struggle for our constitutional rights.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Well that's good! However I question the "your papers please" request.
    I don't mind if the police want to "ask". As long as they don't mind when I say "no thanks"

    Obviously, if someone calls the police about a man with a gun, I suppose they have an obligation to "do something about it". I don't know what kind of call came into the dispatcher, but knowing "people" you never know.

    If after a conversation with the complainant over the phone, the dispatcher couldn't determine that there wasn't a reason to take police resources to investigate, I think the officer should have driven by.

    Perhaps driven by with a friendly wave.

    All in all I give the Burlington Police Department a 1/2 a gold star. If the benchmark of police performance is the West Allis or Chilton police departments response to law-abiding citizens going about their business, Burlington is ahead of the curve.

    But if the benchmark of police performance is the constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the great state of Wisconsin, this is "pass/fail" and they still failed.




  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    Hugh said,

    "But if the benchmark of police performance is the constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the great state of Wisconsin, this is "pass/fail" and they still failed. "

    Well, this is my thread and I grade on the curve, hence they pass with flying colors.

    Hugh, how will your local LEOs treat you should you open carry?

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Max, I'm not here to be argumentative with you, and "its your thread" so I offer my most sincere apologies that I don't completely agree with you. I guess I should start my own thread if I want to do that. (insert eye roll here)

    I acknowledge that the police response in Burlington is closer to appropriate than the responses that we have seen from other departments.

    But I refuse to accept that we should be ok with "just a little" infringement on our freedom because it could be "much worse"

    Police must have probable cause to make a stop. Thats what keeps us from becoming a police state. When the police can stop us whenever they want, we aren't free.

    And to be honest, I cut the police very VERY little slack when it comes to the law. THEY SHOULD KNOW IT. Are they not professionals? Do they not preach to us that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Shouldn't the very people who have the discretion and authority to take away our rights under certain circumstances know just EXACTLY what those circumstances are BETTER THAN ANYONE?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    Hugh, I do not disagree with anything you said. We just disagree as to the glass being half full or half empty. I too want the police to respect ALL of our rights but am willing to accept them respecting most of them for now. Short of a big win in a court that will affect the entire state, I am willing to fight little skirmishes in my neck of the woods. Today, Burlington, tomorrow, THE WORLD.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    I got a copy of the police report. Very uneventful.

    "Report of man walking down Hwy 36. Subject believed he had a gun in a holster. Located subject at this location. Officers did find that the subject did have a holstered gun. Spoke with ***** who was found to not be causing any problems. ***** is not a convicted felon. No report to follow. Finished/complete."

    Stop took 17 minutes. I know, I know, that's 17 minutes too long. lol

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Well that sure is night and day compared to West Allis/West Milwaukee/Chilton

    I mean seriously... How can police response be SO varied? Where is the training here? Nearly the exact same circumstance, in one case people get robo-cops coming at them guns drawn handcuffed/arrested/transported, in this case, a far more appropriate response (though not perfect) the officer didn't draw his gun and point it at an innocent citizen, didn't handcuff, didn't arrest or transport for the SAME behavior.

    And one other thing I forgot, if the officer just "asked" for ID, presumably the subject in question could have just declined to provide it and asked to go about their business thus perhaps shortening the 17 minute wait to a few seconds.

    Now I am curious what the officer would have done if the subject had declined to provide ID.

    In addition, for the citizens of Burlington, your police force certainly doesn't have the time to spend 17 minutes stopping everyone when theres a "man with a gun" call. If you all just go out and start carrying on your daily walks, you will very quickly "retrain" your local dispatchers (by necessity) to screen out calls when the person isn't doing "something disorderly" and merely open carrying. I'm sure Burlington PD doesn't have the manpower to handle a dozen of these calls a day if they are going to spend 17 minutes on each.





  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post


    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Where is the training here?
    I agree 100%. Officer education and training is (IMO) the most critical thing needed in Wisconsin for OC to flourish.

    Court cases and law changes may help, but they won't do a thing if the cop on the street isn't clear about what is allowed and what isn't by citizens and LEOs alike.

    We need to personally devote time towards education of LEOs, DAs and city attorneys. These are the front line people we will deal with if we have or use firearms. Whenever I come across a story that indicates a need for officer education, I try to contact the department, DA, or whomever is involved with that case to challenge them when they're wrong and to provide them with correct information. They don't always appreciate it, but tough. They've been corrected and if they choose to continue to stubbornly operate under incorrect assumptions, they may eventually suffer the consequences. I've always taken a friendly but firm approach. When I sent the Beloit Chief the exact wording of the "vehicle" transport statute, he stopped responding. He probably didn't like being shown he was wrong, but at least he knows what the law says, and hopefully it will trickle down the chain of command.

    It's probably appropriate to encourage correct information by showing appreciation to those public officials who DO know the law.
    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"

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Now I am curious what the officer would have done if the subject had declined to provide ID.
    I also was thinking about that. What if an individual is not carrying any ID? What would they have done? Maybe we ought to ask the Burlington PD!
    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"

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    I was pulled over without my ID once.. and all i did was give my name (first,last) and birth date.. they checked for warrants and i was on my way with a fix it ticket.

    of course the office had a reason to stop me.. i cant say I've ever been stopped for just walking down the street. :P

    edit: spelling.

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

    Post imported post

    Identification documents are not required by state law but only a verbal report of name and address.

    I thought that I had posted this...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    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, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
    stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
    notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
    drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
    of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877,
    07−1578.
    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.
    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.



  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    A diamond with a flaw is worth more than a pebble without imperfection.

    Chinese proverb

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    A diamond with a flaw is worth more than a pebble without imperfection.

    Chinese proverb
    Yep, that's why Master always told Grasshopper, "When you can snatch the pebble from my hand..." Master was no dummie.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Mr. Huffman,

    Wisconsin is not a Hiibel state. See 946.41 and Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

    Local ordinances in compliance with Hiibel are constitutional.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hanover County, Virginia, ,
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Police must have probable cause to make a stop. Thats what keeps us from becoming a police state. When the police can stop us whenever they want, we aren't free.
    Police only need reasonable articulable suspicion, not probable cause, to make a stop. RAS is a lower threshold than PC.

    It seems like the LEO did not even have RAS in this situation. However, the LEO could easily say this was a consensual encounter. Neither RAS nor PC is required for a consensual encounter.

Posting Permissions

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