Flynn tells "troops"to go fishing for probable cause to arrest

imported post

From Milwaukee Journal - Police bulletin says citizen call may be reason for disorderly charge or "order-in" (to police station?) :banghead:


http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/43998042.html

imported post

http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/bulletin.pdf

In Ed Flynn's "training bulletin he states"

[align=center]

If the person stopped is in possession of an openly carried firearm, the firearm shall be taken from the person and secured until the field interview has concluded

Click to expand...

[font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]. [/font][/font]

Click to expand...

[/b][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][/align][/font][/font]
Do you have to surrender your firearm to an officer? Is that not illegal seizure? If you consent to have your firearm removed from your person, are you consenting to be searched?

Would it be appropos to state "I am not consenting to any search, I am not consenting to any siezure" before your gun is taken from you?

imported post

Great find flipper. That memo is quite interesting.

imported post

Anyone forward this to the FBI yet?

imported post

so basically flynn is telling his 'troops' to use a very liberal definition of reasonable suspicion. nice.

imported post

Here is a link to the bulletin http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/bulletin.pdf
that flynn allegedly distributed to the officers in Milwaukee (AKA "The troops)

it seems as if he got a sensitive appendage caught in a wringer after his boisterous remarks to the media last week. The bulletin has obviously been written by an attorney with a common grasp or what our rights protect us from.

I think it is somewhat fair, except for this last paragraph I cut and pasted from the PDf file

"If citizens are calling and are disturbed by someone carrying a firearm, probable cause [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]may [/font][/font]exist to make an arrest for disorderly conduct or order-in of the subject. A seizure of the weapon as evidence would also then be necessary."

Since to convict a citizen of disorderly conduct takes more than just a sensitive person being offended.

imported post

Can we get a legal opinion on this?

Specifically, #4. The officer may demand the person's name and address and explanation of his/her conduct. However, if the person refuses to identify him/herself or answer questions, and there is no further information or facts which could lead the officer to "probable cause," the officer must allow the person to go on his/her way. Refusal to answer an officer's questions in itself is not "obstructing an officer."

So, if the LEO asks my name, etc. and I refuse to give it, they'll just let me go? Anyone buy that for a dollar?

Next, "If the person stopped is in possession of an openly carried firearm, the firearm shall be taken from the person and secured until the field interview has concluded."

So will I have to remove my firearm from its holster while I'm being detained and questioned"? Isn't that unsafe? How will the LEO secure it? Tuck it in his belt? Or do I need to remove my belt so as to remove my entire holster?

As I am sure all of you do, I take the handling of any firearm with the utmost caution and safety. As a former LEO (military), I have spent many hours on the range and teaching others about firearms safety and shooting. Or will the LEO use the old movie cliche, "Put the gun on the ground and kick it over here...." Any LEO taking firearms from holsters to "secure it" is screaming for an A-D.

This next one may be my favorite, "If citizens are calling and are disturbed by someone carrying a firearm, probable cause may exist to make an arrest for disorderly conduct or order-in of the subject. A seizure of the weapon as evidence would also then be necessary."

I can just imagine how it will be:

LEO: I'm sorry sir, but an anonymous citizen called about you exercising your rights. They were disturbed by this, so you are under arrest for disorderly conduct"

WI Patriot: With so many disturbed people in Milwaukee, how can you tell?

LEO: Don't be a wise guy, sir. Just get on the ground before I and my fellow troops take you down.

WI Patriot: Didn't you guys read the AG memo?

LEO: Sure, but our boss said, "While this advisory memorandum is influential, it does not carry the weight of Wisconsin Statutes or Court precedence." So we're pretty much blowing that memo off, and we're making it up as we go.........


Milwaukee: It's a Brave New World.

Molon Labe!!!!!!

imported post

So will I have to remove my firearm from its holster while I'm being detained and questioned"? Isn't that unsafe? How will the LEO secure it? Tuck it in his belt? Or do I need to remove my belt so as to remove my entire holster?

Click to expand...

I'll relay to you what I was told today by a very respected attorney in this area

In answer to your
specific question, "reasonable articulable suspicion" does not mean, as
your question implies, that an officer has to articulate that suspicion
to the armed citizen. "Articulable" in that context means that it can
be articulated (such as in a court proceeding), not that it actually is
articulated to the citizen. In short, the officer does not have to
prove to you that he has valid reasons for disarming you -- he just has
to be able to express those valid reasons to a judge if necessary.

If an officer requests your weapon on a consensual basis
(something that is not really likely to happen), you have no obligation
to comply. If the officer demands your weapon under force of law, you
aren't really going to have much choice. My experience is that 1) the
officer will have plenty of backup on the scene, unless it's just not
possible; 2) the officer will order you to put your hands in the air or
otherwise make it clear you are being commanded and detained and not
consensually asked; and 3) the officer will physically take your weapon
himself, as opposed to asking you to hand it to him (or at the very
least he will ask you to hand it slowly and carefully with a two-finger
pinch of the very end of the grips).

Click to expand...

If you are stopped by MPD, they will probably take your gun from you, ask your name, run your name, and return your gun from you if you aren' t a felon (or doing something else wrong)

As stated in the memo from the chief, you don't have to answer ANY questions. If you chose to decline to answer questions you can ask "am I free to go" and unless they have a reason to suspect a crime has,is or is about to take place, they have to return your weapon and let you go.

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what MPD will really do. hmmmm

imported post

Here is another scenario..... walking down the street and YOU fart....oops .... and a neighbor is offended and calls the police do you get disorderly conduct ticket?

i don't mean to be a smart a$$ but this is getting ridiculous. By no means am i taking this issue lightly nor do i want my rights being taken away but i feel that they want to scare you into not exercising your rights.

imported post

John Bad Elk vs United States..................

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Would it be appropos to state "I am not consenting to any search, I am not consenting to any siezure" before your gun is taken from you?

Click to expand...

It is always appropriate to state those things, but I think it is best if you say it when you are being detained. Before that, first ask "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" This will establish if you can walk away legally.

imported post

Caveat regarding City of Milwaukee ordinance:

Take note that the so-called "training bulletin" talks about finding "contraband" as grounds for a valid arrest. Make sure you don't have any contraband. Milwaukee ordinances prohibit carrying knives with blades of 3 inches or longer. Presumably this refers only to carrying a concealed knife, but the ordinance is so convoluted who knows how they'll interpret it? It's extremely common for gun carriers to also carry a knife, so make sure if you've got one in Milwaukee it's a pipsqueak. Don't give them an excuse to haul you in.

Time for a state knife preemption law?

imported post

smithman wrote:

hugh jarmis wrote:

Would it be appropos to state "I am not consenting to any search, I am not consenting to any siezure" before your gun is taken from you?

Click to expand...

It is always appropriate to state those things, but I think it is best if you say it when you are being detained. Before that, first ask "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" This will establish if you can walk away legally.

Click to expand...

From the "training bulletin:" If the person stopped is in possession of an openly carried firearm, the firearm shall be taken from the person and secured until the field interview has concluded. Upon completion of the questioning, the firearm must be returned if its possession is legal unless, upon probable cause, you decide to arrest.

It would be interesting to just stand (or lay) there quietly, not answering any questions. That would make for a quick "completion of the questioning." I can't see where it would generally help you to answer any questions, they're only fishing to make you state something even slightly open to interpretation as incriminating. The best response to every question is a question of your own... "Am I free to go (with my property)?"

I've been told by a police detective that the police don't particularly care if what you're saying is true or false-- they just want you to make statements that are contradictory. Under those conditions, clearly the less said, the better.

imported post

Shotgun, yes you are correct. Contradictory statements = "obstruction of an officer" and will get you arrested. Less is more.

To expedite the finishing of the questioning, it would be wise to only speak to ask if:

1. Am I free to go
2. To give your name/address
3. To assert your rights "I do no permit search. I do not permit siezure".

I would advise to NEVER carry a knife when carrying a firearm. For a whole host of reasons, including here that it could be "contraband". Also the fact that if you had to use your gun and did not first use your knife (lesser force) that will raise questions to attack your actions.

imported post

Our founding fathers would have alot to say about LEOs attempting to make contact with people simply to lead them into make contradictory statements. I would imagine they would find such a situation quite disturbing.

imported post

Smithman, I agree with everything you said except the statement about knives being a considered a lesser level of force.

Legally, the use of a knife as a weapon is considered deadly force, same as a firearm. Indeed, tactically, a knife might be very much more effective and deadly than a firearm up close. This very issue came up when I took the MN concealed carry course. We were advised not to carry something that is truly lower on the continuum of force, such as pepper spray. Because if you shot someone, the prosecutor will undoubtedly question why you didn't merely pepper spray them.

If one is justified in using a knife in defense, one is equally justified in using a gun, and vice versa.

imported post

Shotgun, you may very well be right about the knife being the same level of force as a firearm. I have not studied court cases in which this effect was played out. I have always thought of a knife being a lesser force but in the eyes of the law you may be correct. Thanks for posting your comments.

imported post

smithman wrote:

I would advise to NEVER carry a knife when carrying a firearm. For a whole host of reasons, including here that it could be "contraband". Also the fact that if you had to use your gun and did not first use your knife (lesser force) that will raise questions to attack your actions.

Click to expand...

I would simply add that statute 66.0409 applies ONLY to firearms. Therefore, carrying your firearm may be pre-empted at the same time carrying your knife would not be.