First Encounter with Law Enforcement

imported post

It is late as I write this, so I will try to stick to just the facts.

I spent all day at the Tomah Truck and Tractor Pull (firearms prohibited, but that's a future topic maybe).

Anyway, thing gets over at about 10:15PM. On our way back to Onalaska, we stop at McDonalds in Sparta, WI. I order, and they inform me that there is a wait on the fries. Me and the boy sit down and eat the burgers. Several people in and out, young adult maybe 21 notices firearm and gets on cell phone immediately. Counter person brings us the fries.

As we are about finishing up, I notice law enforcement coming to the door. My boy says, "hey dad, the police are going to eat here too."

Two officers come in, one walks around to my strong side the other stands directly behind me.

Female officer: Evening sir, I am here because we got a call about you being in here with a firearm. May I see some ID?

Me: Sure. I slowly reach around behind the firearm take out the wallet, and surrender the driver's license.

Female officer: Why are you carrying a gun anyway.

Me: No particular reason.

Female officer: No particular reason?

Me: I carry it with me everywhere I go.

Female officer: Begins to do radio check or whatever it is they do with the DL info.

Male officer now walks around in front of me, female office is behind.

Male officer: Aren't you the guy who did the picnic in La Crosse?

Me: One in the same.

Male officer: I thought I recognized the name, now that I see the face, it is you. How many times you have this happen?

Me: An encounter with law enforcement?

Male Officer: Yes, how many time?

Me: Actually, this is the first time.

Male officer: Really?

Me: I carry everywhere I go, and this is the first time I have been approached by an officer.

Female officer (returning): Well, everything checked out, and you'recarrying legally, notconcealed,just remember to unload and case it when you get to your car. She hands me back the license at this point.

I take the license, put it in my wallet, and return my wallet to right rear pocket.

Both officers exit the building.

We finish up, empty the tray, and head outside. As I come out of the building, the two officers that were inside, are there talking with a state trooper.

Me: WOW, never expected this.

Male officer: There are three more on the way, we told them we couldn't find you(he smiles at me).

Me: Have a nice evening.

Female officer: Drive safe.

Me: Thank you.

I go to the van, remove the firearm from the holster, drop the mag out, clear the chamber, and place everything neatly in the case. Me and the boy get in the van and leave.

Two Sparta police officers and one state trooper still discussing whatever in the parking lot.

imported post

I am a little shocked you gave up your DLso fast, but I guess you did have a kid with you.

As for me, I don't think I will give my name to them (if I am on foot, and not in my car). But I do not have any kids... And I know that is a real factor...

Also shocked this was your first time (we all knowwho you are), but I am happy to see that YOUR cops had a clue about the real law. I am also happy it was not in Milwaukee. I am still not to sure how my first will be. After getting to understand what Parabellum had to go through, just to get back a rusty gun, months later, I just find myself in a state of fear and loathing... Of my own law enforcement...:cuss: Ahh, but it still won't stop me... I just keep a happy face on, and think good thoughts as I shop... I am still looking for a good lawyer that will work for food...


Well, happy again it went well for you. It should, and you know it!

imported post

AaronS wrote:

As for me, I don't think I will give my name to them (if I am on foot, and not in my car).

Click to expand...

CHAPTER 968
COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
[ ...]
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.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

AaronS wrote:

Click to expand...

As for me, I don't think I will give my name to them (if I am on foot, and not in my car).

Click to expand...

Snip:
CHAPTER 968
COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
[ ...]
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.

Click to expand...

Doug, I'm really surprised that you posted that. Actually, that statute does pertain, but I'm surprised at your interpretation. Notice the "and" after the three criteria for making a stop. Basically, you are free to walk unless an LEO has reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, is being committed, or has been committed. If there is no crime, you are free to walk per Terry v. Ohio. This was also the directive of the WI AG in his "revolutionary" (read sarcastically) memo that clarified that OC was indeed legal per Art I, Sect 25 as interpreted in State v. Hamdan.

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.

Click to expand...

No crimes being committed here. :dude:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

imported post

pvtschultz wrote

Doug, I'm really surprised that you posted that. Actually, that statute does pertain, but I'm surprised at your interpretation.

Click to expand...

Hmmpf! My interpretation? I posted the entire context of complications to text that I emphasized. I interpreted nothing.

I believe that you dismissed, out of hand, nearly two dozen annotations and their associated case law. That case law was engendered by courts haggling over the nine lines of the statute.

imported post

I think you did great BNH, you did nothing wrong and your a law abiding citizen. You have no reason to hide your identity and by producing your ID as requested you developed a positive realtionship with the officers. Kudos to you.

This may have very well have been the officers first Man with Gun call as well. So I am sure they learned something here too.

imported post

hah did wat your told baa baa

privace rights only defended goooone

imported post

In the situation that BNH was involved in, he was not legally obligated to show ID or identify himself to the officers.

And Doug Huffman has chosen to cut, snip, & highlight parts of a statute covering a legal "Terry Stop" without any hints of what message he is trying to convey.
The "Terry Stop"does not apply to BNH because there was no evidence of a crime afoot or reports of a crime being committed or reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to be committed.

In this situation, it would have been fully legal and acceptable for Hubert to ignore the officers, walk away, andrefuse toidentify himself with no explanation of his legal and protected behavior of exercising his 2A rights.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

In this situation, it would have been fully legal and acceptable for Hubert to ignore the officers, walk away, andrefuse toidentify himself with no explanation of his legal and protected behavior of exercising his 2A rights.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on principle but here's the problem with that:

The officers only need RAS to ask for ID. They don't have to tell you what the RAS is, they only need to be able to explainthe suspicionto the courts in case it goes that far. You have no idea what the guy with the cell phone said to them. They may indeed have RAS just from that phone call.

So, if you really plan on refusing to ID yourself, it gets complicated. Maybe you could trysomething like:

"officers, I'm busy eating dinner with my family, I know you're just doing your job but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me get back to my dinner".

If they still kept bothering you I think it would be safe to assume they have RAS. If they asked for your ID you could take it one step further and ask them: "Are you asking for my ID or demanding my ID"? If they demand it, they've got (or think they've got)RAS and you may as well give it to them.

RAS doesn't take anywhere near the same amount of "evidence" as probable cause.

imported post

Thank you. Mr. Sack would rather be argumentative.

Walking away may be fleeing and trigger

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).

Click to expand...

imported post

I still think BNH created a positive relationship with these officers and I am sure they spread the word through out their department. This can only be a good thing. The next time they see him it will probably result in a simple wave in passing.

imported post

You have no reason to hide your identity and by producing your ID as requested you developed a positive realtionship with the officers. Kudos to you.

Click to expand...

I'll respectfully disagree here.

There is plenty of reason not to provide your identity to police. Even when you are doign nothing wrong.

I'll give you one example (of which there are thousands) Police don't like the fact that you are carrying, but know they can't do anything about it. But they have you name. They decide to pay a little "special" attention to you when you leave your house. Knowing we all break the law EVERY day (speeding) the police just decide to dish out a little "selective enforcement".

No thanks. Police have given the general public MORE than enough reason not to trust them.

I originally thought if I get stopped, I'd provide my name verbally (NOT MY ID) since once they have my ID, I can't leave.

I've since changed my mind. I will politely decline to provide my name.

The officers only need RAS to ask for ID. They don't have to tell you what the RAS is, they only need to be able to explainthe suspicionto the courts in case it goes that far. You have no idea what the guy with the cell phone said to them. They may indeed have RAS just from that phone call.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

By declining to provide ID or verbally give my name, I'm determining whether the armed government agent believes he has RAS. If he "orders" me to provide ID, I have no choice but to comply, and I'll just continue to exercise my right to be silent.

imported post

Agreed.

But not re "we all break the law EVERY day (speeding)"; my last speeding ticket was in 1977 and not honestly deserved. My last line-of-duty contact with an LEO was over an incident with a motorist while I was bicycling CCW.

imported post

I definitely agree Nik, but with the officer recognizing BNH, I do think it made a positive impact. That is the point I was trying to get at, just didn't word it right.

I do have to agree that there are plenty of officers out there that would have a hidden agenda and as you say do a little extra police work in an effort to watch you leave your home and make some unintended mistake that they could nail you for.

With the problems you have down there in Milwaukee I could definitely see where you are coming from and It does change my prospective on the situation.

I guess I lose track of that sometimes as I generally know all of the officers around here.

imported post

I still think BNH created a positive relationship with these officers and I am sure they spread the word through out their department. This can only be a good thing. The

Click to expand...

I think its a gamble. As a business-person, not enough can be said for the mutual benefit of a positive relationship between2 entities.

But thats in a situation where each person has the free capacity to participate as they wish, or not participate. Armed government agents, because they have the ability to deny you your free will and your rights. (their job affords them this), the "relationship" is NEVER a mutual one. The Armed Government Agent ALWAYS has the threat of forced compliance on their side.

I think its a risk to voluntarily comply. At best, you think the officers like you and you feel good. At worst, that comes back to bite you in the ass.

I think a better precedent for a POSITIVE relationship is to let the police know that YOU know your rights and THAT puts the relationship more on equal ground. If you think the police like you cause you're a nice guy, and the police think they can do what they want because you comply, thats not an equitable balance, and there is no 'mutual respect'.

I think the most equitable relationship between myself and the police will exist when in their official capacity they KNOW that I KNOW my rights and that I will be assertive and exercise them. By being polite and knowing my rights, I command the respect of the police. they have no choice. That is balance. They have the threat of forced compliance on their side, I have my rights on mine. Balance.

A positive relationship is based upon RESPECT, not subservience. A citizens best outcome in their dealings with police will be based upon a police force that is mindful of the boundaries of the law, not a police force that ellicits voluntary compliance through fear and intimidation of their official capacity.

imported post

I did not add my opinions or feelings on BNH's encounter, I was simply stating that in the situation spelled out by BNH , there was no legal obligation for him to produce ID since he was not breaking any laws, he was not acting in a suspicious manner, and he was not being boisterous or argumentative towards anyone.

Obviously the memo sent out by our A.G. has fallen upon deaf ears and blind eyes in many law enforcement communities because it had specifically spelled out what, how& why an officer can interact with a person carrying a firearm. it is nothing new, just a reminder of the laws written years, decades, and centuries ago!

yes with Hubert having his son, producing ID has most likely kept the situation from escalating to the officers demanding ID, and possibly cuffing, detainingor arresting him and terrifying his child.

There was absolutely no legal reason for the police to evenmake contact with Hubert, or for him to comply! None at all! A simple drive-by while looking in the windows and not seeing any criminal activity would have been more than enough. Or if the dispatcher would have asked 'Is the subject you are calling about acting violent or creating a disturbance? No, well sir it is his right to carry a firearm, thank you for calling the boottown police department, enjoy your evening"

Lets use another scenario, someone makes a 911 call, tells the dispatcher he saw drugs in a vehicle. Do those officers now have the legal rightto stop you and search your vehicle with no probable cause besides an anonymous tipster? Same goes with a home, can they search your home and harass you just because someone on the other end of the telephone said you have drugs in your home?

Again, let me reiterate. I am not saying Hubert did anything wrong, or he should have acted any other way when contacted by the police. But why did the police feel the need to even approach him and ask for ID, and why were so many units dispatched for someone obeying the law and exercising his rights?

Obviously it pisses me off that they acted that way and I think others should be bothered by this also!

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I did not add my opinions or feelings on BNH's encounter, I was simply stating that in the situation spelled out by BNH , there was no legal obligation for him to produce ID since he was not breaking any laws, he was not acting in a suspicious manner, and he was not being boisterous or argumentative towards anyone.

Click to expand...

There MAY have been a legal obligation for him to produce the ID. How do you know? That's why you need to test it.

Click to expand...

Obviously the memo sent out by our A.G. has fallen upon deaf ears and blind eyes in many law enforcement communities because it had specifically spelled out what, how& why an officer can interact with a person carrying a firearm. it is nothing new, just a reminder of the laws written years, decades, and centuries ago!

Click to expand...

The AG memo said that the officer can ask for ID anytime he'd like and candemand itif he has RAS.

Click to expand...

yes with Hubert having his son, producing ID has most likely kept the situation from escalating to the officers demanding ID, and possibly cuffing, detainingor arresting him and terrifying his child.

There was absolutely no legal reason for the police to evenmake contact with Hubert, or for him to comply! None at all! A simple drive-by while looking in the windows and not seeing any criminal activity would have been more than enough. Or if the dispatcher would have asked 'Is the subject you are calling about acting violent or creating a disturbance? No, well sir it is his right to carry a firearm, thank you for calling the boottown police department, enjoy your evening"

Click to expand...

How do you know that there was no legal reason for the police to make contact with Hubert? Did you hear the phone call?

Click to expand...

Lets use another scenario, someone makes a 911 call, tells the dispatcher he saw drugs in a vehicle. Do those officers now have the legal rightto stop you and search your vehicle with no probable cause besides an anonymous tipster? Same goes with a home, can they search your home and harass you just because someone on the other end of the telephone said you have drugs in your home?

Click to expand...

RAS is not probable cause, it's much, much less. In your example the officers would have RAS and would be able todemand ID. If they smelled or saw drugs, then they may have probable cause.

Click to expand...

Again, let me reiterate. I am not saying Hubert did anything wrong, or he should have acted any other way when contacted by the police. But why did the police feel the need to even approach him and ask for ID, and why were so many units dispatched for someone obeying the law and exercising his rights?

Obviously it pisses me off that they acted that way and I think others should be bothered by this also!

Click to expand...

Once again, I agree with you on principle but you have to understand how open of a loophole RAS really is. Just thankyour lucky starsthat it's not the same as probable cause.

imported post

In all honesty it sounds like those cops were ready to poop themselves and had to stand out side afterward to catch their breath.

Either way I am glad it came out well for BNH especially when he had his kid with him. There are some cops that do not care how much they traumatize a child.

imported post

Look, they didn't come in with guns drawn all gestapo like, so I credit them with not over reacting in that way.

Anyway, I have always tried the honey not vinegar approach. Had there been any further intrusion into my evening, I most certainly would have ended the cooperation.

As to the call, there is an open records request already being sent, so I should have additional information in a few days/weeks.

imported post

B-M,
A person with anopenly carried, holstered firearm is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. There must be other exigent circumstance involved.
We have gone over this topicin this forum on several occasions and the samewas clearly statedby the A.G. in hisinformal memo to law enforcement. That is what sent Chief Flynn, Mayor Barrett, and Governor Doyle into their rights trampling tirades in the first place.

There MAY have been a legal obligation for him to produce the ID. How do you know? That's why you need to test it.
Yes an officer can ask for ID, but unless you are operating a motor vehicle you are not legally obligated to produce ID, state your name, or identify yourself in any manner. For me it is a matter of principal! We are not living in pre-1945 Germany or any other communist country where we must willingly produce our "papers" at the request of law enforcement or otherwisebe imprisoned.

How do you know that there was no legal reason for the police to make contact with Hubert? Did you hear the phone call?
There was no reason for the police to make contact becauseBNH was behaving in a legal manner that is protected by both our federal and state constitutions and in my earlier post I clearly stated "As spelled out by BNH" So I am relying on his telling of the events that took place.

If they smelled or saw drugs, then they may have probable cause.
yes I agree, but an anonymous tip is not probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion of a crime, or is it good enough reason to conduct a search without consent or to enter someones vehicle or home without consent! If a bag of what appeared to be cocaine can clearly be seen through the window, on the seat of the vehicle. That would be probable cause.

I stand up and fightfor all ofmy rights, waiving any of myrights becauseI want to be seen as cooperative is something I would never do.

I feel this forum is more about all of our rights,than just our 2A rights! I agree with the statement "Without our 2A rights, we would have lost our 1A rights along with many others along time ago"

I am not condemning BNH's actions when he wasapproached by the police, I am condemning the police for their actions!