Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 82

Thread: Fantastic WalMart experience

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Just got back from grocery shopping at the Mukwonago Walmart (Which is the only grocery store open at 1:30AM). Went about the same as shopping there during the day, except this time I was greeted leaving the exit by a nice police officer who asked for my ID. I gave it to him, he called it in, said that most people get in trouble for entering businesses with policies against firearms which walmart does not, or from concealing them because my shirt was untucked and could possibly cover it, then sent me on my way. Well, the Waukesha County sheriff department must have been really bored, because as soon as I left the parking lot, I was pulled over by 4 marked and 2 unmarked police cars.

    The story I got was that I was obviously "new" to carrying a firearm, since I am guessing was because he didn't know me on a first name basis, and his not so observant partner claimed that I entered my vehicle without encasing my firearm. Which wasn't the case, because they were obviously waiting for me to leave the parking lot. He could see that the holster was empty, but wanted to make sure that I didn't have any ammunition on my person, and the firearm was in the case and unloaded. On top of that, they wanted to make sure I had all of the ammunition out of the magazine and not in the same case as the firearm. When I told him it wasn't, he said the ammunition needed to be stored separate from the firearm. I asked for a statute number, and about 1/2 hour later, I was quoted 167.31, which as far as I can tell says nothing of the sort.

    Then they decided the case wasn't far enough out of reach. I am driving an extended cab ranger, and I had the case behind the passenger side of the bench seat. I have to remove the seat belt in order to reach it there, but they told me it shouldn't be in the passenger compartment, then later decided that it should be behind the DRIVERS seat.

    Long story short, no citations, but it wasted about 1 hour of mine, and at least 6 other officers time.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    nevinsb wrote:
    Just got back from grocery shopping at the Mukwonago Walmart (Which is the only grocery store open at 1:30AM). Went about the same as shopping there during the day, except this time I was greeted leaving the exit by a nice police officer who asked for my ID. I gave it to him, he called it in, said that most people get in trouble for entering businesses with policies against firearms which walmart does not, or from concealing them because my shirt was untucked and could possibly cover it, then sent me on my way. Well, the Waukesha County sheriff department must have been really bored, because as soon as I left the parking lot, I was pulled over by 4 marked and 2 unmarked police cars.

    The story I got was that I was obviously "new" to carrying a firearm, since I am guessing was because he didn't know me on a first name basis, and his not so observant partner claimed that I entered my vehicle without encasing my firearm. Which wasn't the case, because they were obviously waiting for me to leave the parking lot. He could see that the holster was empty, but wanted to make sure that I didn't have any ammunition on my person, and the firearm was in the case and unloaded. On top of that, they wanted to make sure I had all of the ammunition out of the magazine and not in the same case as the firearm. When I told him it wasn't, he said the ammunition needed to be stored separate from the firearm. I asked for a statute number, and about 1/2 hour later, I was quoted 167.31, which as far as I can tell says nothing of the sort.

    Then they decided the case wasn't far enough out of reach. I am driving an extended cab ranger, and I had the case behind the passenger side of the bench seat. I have to remove the seat belt in order to reach it there, but they told me it shouldn't be in the passenger compartment, then later decided that it should be behind the DRIVERS seat.

    Long story short, no citations, but it wasted about 1 hour of mine, and at least 6 other officers time.
    Wow, just wow.

    As for 167.31

    (g) "Unloaded" means any of the following:

    1. Having no shell or cartridge in the chamber of a firearm or in the magazine attached to a firearm.

    2. In the case of a cap lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the cap removed.

    3. In the case of a flint lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the flashpan cleaned of powder.


    I draw attention to the word "attached" As long as the mag is out of the gun and the chamber is empty you're fine. I have my gun in the case it came with and the magwell is empty.


    Total BS situation man. I'd have a word with some of the people in their dept. They clearly need more education.
    The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair. Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I plan on stopping down at the North Prairie sub station off of 59 tomorrow. Not being employed, I have plenty of spare time to waste.



  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No. Have a word with your attorney. It was a bad stop from the beginning.

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

    Post imported post

    nevinsb wrote:
    Yeah, I plan on stopping down at the North Prairie sub station off of 59 tomorrow. Not being employed, I have plenty of spare time to waste.
    Those LEOs should have some splainin' to do.

    They violated your rights.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I would find a good civil rights attorney because you were stopped for an unreasonable amount of time and for no reason. Below is the attorney representing a fellow OC'er in Federal Court in his suit against the cities of West Milwaukee and Clinton, WI.

    Jesus' Attorney info:

    John R. Monroe
    Attorney at Law
    9640 Coleman Road
    Roswell, GA 30075
    Telephone: (678) 362-7650
    Facsimile: (770) 552-9318
    john.monroe1@earthlink.net

    Otherwise, go to the WI Bar home page to find an attorney if you can't find one through other channels.

    http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cf...ontentid=69616

    ETA: You should have picked up a digital voice recorder while you were grocery shopping (if you can afford it given your employment status that is).
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    This is a great thread to read about your rights:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/29046-2.html
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

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

    Post imported post

    Good grief. People wonder why I can't stand police. THIS is what law enforcement does?

    They already determined you were a law-abiding citizen (which you shouldn't have had to prove in the first place). This is not a police state!

    Then they obviously need a new eyeglass prescription because you were unloaded and encased. I SURE HOPE this officer who can't see never gets called to testify against anyone in the future. His vision is CLEARLY deficient. He has no business as a police officer.

    THEN they don't the the F'ing LAW!

    And all of that took HOW MANY F'ING POLICE?

    I'm glad these police departments that we constantly hear are so "pressed to the limit" with manpower issues have time to send SIX SQUADS to pull over someone they had already determined was not a criminal to try to nail you on the techincality of not properly encasing (which you were)

    There is something totally wrong with that picture. And I expect FAR FAR more for my tax dollars.

    Shame on the Waukesha county sherrifs department.

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

    Post imported post

    Unless I mis-remember, it was the Waukesha County Sheriffs Department that hired my town cop that said that he would "Prone him out at gun point and cuff him. It's a high risk call." when asked a hypothetical about an armed homeowner on his own property.

    Be careful out there.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I'm sure citizen will be by shortly to give you a full list of rights violated (at least, I've seen him do it a few times, now!)

    This stop sounds way overkill and zealous on the part of the cops. I've heard of cops his CCW states securing the permit holder's firearm and even stripping it until the stop is over, but this is way past that. Looks like they were trying to find ANYTHING they could hook you with, and the fact that they had to radio in to verify some laws shows they weren't even sure themselves what to do.

    I'm glad that you made it out without any BS citations, but that hour you will not get back. As far as getting in touch with your attorney, I see no reason for that since you aren't trying to fight a ticket or anything, but a letter to the dept and a formal complaint is definately in order.

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

    Post imported post

    I'm glad that you made it out without any BS citations, but that hour you will not get back. As far as getting in touch with your attorney, I see no reason for that since you aren't trying to fight a ticket or anything, but a letter to the dept and a formal complaint is definately in order.
    I wouldn't be out spending money on an attorney. But every department has a process by which to file a complaint against officers/deputies.

    Its free, Its your RIGHT, and to be honest, I think its your societal OBLIGATION to file a complaint against these officers.

    It may go nowhere, we KNOW police have a pretty good method of "taking care of their own" but I know internal affairs divisions (and all the other monikers these departments are called by) DO have a legal obligation to investigate.

    At the very LEAST it is then documented and scrutinized. At BEST the officers will get a reprimand by higher ups and this kind of thing WON'T happen in that department in the future.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Money talks and 'should' walks. The attorney is to bring civil action against the officer(s), the department and the municipality for rights violations.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.
    Just want to make sure this is re-read.

    You were set up for the six car stop.
    Rights violation is a crime.

  15. #15
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.
    I think you might stand alone on that one.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.
    nevinsb:

    I agree here with Gleason, file an open records request with the police department(s) and sheriff(s) departments. You should get the "call logs" that brought the police down on you to begin with.

    Then go to the city and county clerks offices (probably different locations) and file complaints against each office involved.

    Write a letter detailing this experience (in complaint format) and send itto the AG, letting him know that even AFTER his memo, LEO is still violating the law and DEMAND the AG's office investigate the ongoing civil rights violations that are happening to OC's like you and me.

    The harder LEO tries to intimidate me into, the stronger my resolve shall become.






  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yes. Through a Freedom of Information Act request as specified in Wisc. Statute Chapter 19, General Duties of Public Officials, sub-section 19.31 - 19.39 and as explained in the Wisconsin Department of Justice Open Records Guide http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/2008-...ec_Outline.pdf 760 MB 90 pages.

    Specifically,

    The Request.
    A. Requests do not have to be in writing. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
    B. The requester generally does not have to identify himself or herself. Wis. Stat.
    § 19.35(1)(i). Caution: Certain substantive statutes, such as those concerning
    student records and health records, may restrict record access to specified persons.
    When records of that nature are the subject of a public records request, the custodian
    should confirm before releasing the records that the requester is someone statutorily
    authorized to obtain the requested records. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i) for other
    limited circumstances in which a requester may be required to show identification.
    C. The requester does not need to state the purpose of the request. Wis. Stat.
    § 19.35(1)(h) and (i).
    D. The request must be reasonably specific as to subject matter and length of time
    involved.
    Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h). Schopper v. Gehring, 210 Wis. 2d 208, 212-13,
    565 N.W.2d 187, 189-90 (Ct. App. 1997) (request for tape and transcript of three
    hours of 911 calls on 60 channels is not reasonably specific).
    1. The purpose of the time and subject matter limitations is to prevent
    unreasonably burdening a records custodian by requiring the custodian to
    spend excessive amounts of time and resources deciphering and responding
    to a request. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190; Gehl,
    2007 WI App 238, ¶ 17, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 17, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 17.
    2. The public records law will not be interpreted to impose such a burden upon
    a records custodian that normal functioning of the office would be severely
    impaired. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190.
    3. A custodian should not have to guess at what records a requester desires.
    Seifert, 2007 WI App 207, ¶ 42, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 42, 740 N.W.2d 177,
    ¶ 42.
    4. A custodian may not deny a request solely because the custodian believes
    that the request could be narrowed. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 20,
    306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 20, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 20.
    - 12 -
    5. The fact that a public records request may result in generation of a large
    volume of records is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny a request as not
    properly limited. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23,
    742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23.
    a. At some point, an overly broad request becomes sufficiently
    excessive to warrant rejection pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
    Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 24, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 24,
    742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 24.
    b. The public records law does not impose unlimited burdens on
    authorities and custodians. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23,
    306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23 (request too
    burdensome when it would have required production of voluminous
    records relating to virtually all county zoning matters over a two-year
    period, without regard to the parties involved or whether the matters
    implicated requester’s interests in any way).
    E. “Magic words” are not required.
    1. A request which reasonably describes the information or record requested is
    sufficient. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
    2. A request, reasonably construed, triggers the statutory requirement to
    respond. For example, a request made under the “Freedom of Information
    Act” should be interpreted as being made under Wisconsin public records
    law. See ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 2002 WI App 302, ¶ 23,
    259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶ 23, 655 N.W.2d 510, ¶ 23.
    3. A request is sufficient if it is directed at an authority and reasonably
    describes the records or information requested. Seifert, 2007 WI App 207,
    ¶ 39, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 39, 740 N.W.2d 177, ¶ 39 (request for records
    created during investigation or relate to disposition of investigation not
    construed to include billing records of attorneys involved in investigation).
    F. “Continuing” requests are not contemplated by the public records law. “The
    right of access applies only to records that exist at the time the request is made, and
    the law contemplates custodial decisions being made with respect to a specific
    request at the time the request is made.” 73 Op. Att’y Gen. 37, 44 (1984).

    Ockham's razor is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." including legalistic entities.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    This is getting rediculous! I read more and more on the forum of the Police rousting the open carrier. Criminals don't relax, eat, and read, while carrying a firearm in public! they don't shop, though they may shop-lift. The Police and beauracrats should see this is their opportunity to regulate, and Tax ($$$$$$$). They should set standards, city by city, county by county, police dept. by police dept, whatever. They should offer us OpenCarriers a means of avoiding conflict. Some kind of card, like one gets when you go to a back stage event at a concert, and a lanyard to wear around our necks.* Then a means to qualify ourselves, some kind of training course, to meet their standards of acceptable responsible Open Carry. Fighting against us, rousting us, wasting tax payer time and money is not the answer. You would think that some Chief of Police somewhere would have thought of this by now. I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.

    WOW. I hope you're being facetious about this.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    gbu28 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    This is getting rediculous! I read more and more on the forum of the Police rousting the open carrier. Criminals don't relax, eat, and read, while carrying a firearm in public! they don't shop, though they may shop-lift. The Police and beauracrats should see this is their opportunity to regulate, and Tax ($$$$$$$). They should set standards, city by city, county by county, police dept. by police dept, whatever. They should offer us OpenCarriers a means of avoiding conflict. Some kind of card, like one gets when you go to a back stage event at a concert, and a lanyard to wear around our necks. Then a means to qualify ourselves, some kind of training course, to meet their standards of acceptable responsible Open Carry. Fighting against us, rousting us, wasting tax payer time and money is not the answer. You would think that some Chief of Police somewhere would have thought of this by now. I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.

    WOW. I hope you're being facetious about this.
    Yeah, I vote a big NO! on this one. There will be a Revolution before this happens.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    This is getting rediculous! I read more and more on the forum of the Police rousting the open carrier. Criminals don't relax, eat, and read, while carrying a firearm in public! they don't shop, though they may shop-lift. The Police and beauracrats should see this is their opportunity to regulate, and Tax ($$$$$$$). They should set standards, city by city, county by county, police dept. by police dept, whatever. They should offer us OpenCarriers a means of avoiding conflict. Some kind of card, like one gets when you go to a back stage event at a concert, and a lanyard to wear around our necks. Then a means to qualify ourselves, some kind of training course, to meet their standards of acceptable responsible Open Carry. Fighting against us, rousting us, wasting tax payer time and money is not the answer. You would think that some Chief of Police somewhere would have thought of this by now. I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.

    Let's say, just for sake of discussion, that all those things you are willing to submit to come to pass.

    1. OC's will still be stopped and questioned, "can I see you card?"

    2. You will have eliminated the possibility of OC to an entire socioeconomic class.

    3. Different standards by county/state/village/township. Do you favor repealing 66.0409?

    4. Any training is good, more training is better, but required training?

    Scenario: Female being stalked by EX boy friend, to the point where she has a restraining order. He is continually "talked" to for violating the order.

    Is it your position that she MUST REMAIN DEFENSELESS until she can get into one of these EXPENSIVE training classes, and pay her $$$$$$ tax?


    I must say I CANNOT agree with your statement.

    I will say however, that if every law making elected official, at every level (town, village, city, county, state, governor) can cite from memory, every state statute or local ordinance pertaining to firearms in every municipality (town, village, city, county) in the state of Wisconsin, then I would be willing to consider support for repealing 66.0409, but only under the aforementioned circumstance.



  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Here is more reason to file the complaints!!!

    http://www.livinglakecountry.com/muk.../51309987.html

    Home » Mukwonago Chief » News News Consulting firm evaluates Town Police By Amy Nixon
    Posted: July 21, 2009
    The Mukwonago Town Board recently hired Resource Management Associates to conduct a study on the Mukwonago Police Department. The study concluded that if Police Chief Grant Turner was to remain in his position, he should make several improvements in his job performance. According to Turner, he and the department have made the majority of the corrections suggested by the February 2009 report.
    Town Chairman Dave Dubey explained that the town board does not have the expertise to evaluate the police department as far as whether or not they're doing their job.
    "We hire consultants to help verify when there is an appearance that there may be issues," he said.
    Dubey added that the town board cannot hire or fire an authority like the chief of police. The police commission is the only entity that has such authority, he said. In order to terminate such a position, the board would have to file a complaint with the police commission, who would then make the ultimate decision. Currently, no such complaint has been filed by the town board.
    Leadership and supervision The report determines that the Turner does not act as a leader.
    "He functions, in fact, as just another police officer and is actually indistinguishable from the officers he supervises," reads the report. "There is nothing in his manner, his conduct or his job performance that suggests he is in charge of the department. There are even reports that he seems to be more interested in taking time off to further his personal interests than he does in advancing the interests of the department."
    The report also states that although Turner is regarded as a nice person, he seems to avoid confrontation.
    "When faced with a difficult situation, he would rather avoid it and hope it will go away. This has led to the frustration on the part of the employees and the Board of Supervisors," reads the report.
    Turner explained that he does not try to avoid conflict.
    "I am not a big disciplinarian," he said. "But when discipline needs to occur, it does occur."
    Turner also explained that he felt the report implied that he did not enjoy his job.
    "I love working as Chief of Police," he said. "I love working for the Town of Mukwonago."
    Because both Turner and Lt. Tom Czarnecki work during the day shift, the report states that there is virtually no supervision on the afternoon or midnight shifts.
    Turner said that he has been switching his schedule around in order to work other shifts. He said he works second or third shift about once every three weeks.
    Accountability to the board According to the report, Turner has often been asked for information by the board which he could not answer.
    "(This has) led the board to question his knowledge of how the department operates," the report says.
    Furthermore, the report argues that Turner seldom attended board meetings until recently after being ordered by the board to do so.
    Turner said that two months ago, the board started having meetings with the department heads each month, which he says helps a great deal as far as communication between he and the board.
    Discipline The report states that police officers have not been regularly evaluated in the past. Although Turner says that last year, he and Czarnecki began evaluating the officers, the report argues that there was never an evaluation of Czarnecki and also that Czarnecki had officers evaluate one another, but since there were no real guidelines on how this was to be done, some of the officers felt the process was unproductive.
    The report also indicates several instances in which officers were not disciplined as they should have been.
    "In one case, an officer was lent a department weapon to fire at the range before purchasing one," reads the report. "Several months later the weapon was stolen from the officer's private vehicle while in Milwaukee. The officer was never disciplined … the Chief of Police stated that he didn't think he had the authority to discipline the officer since he had lent him the weapon … In reality, the weapon should not have been lent to the officer in the first place, and disciplinary action should definitely have been taken against the officer for his negligence in not taking better care of the weapon."
    The report also describes a case in which an officer accidently discharged his weapon while responding to an alarm in the Village of Mukwonago.
    "Apparently the Chief of Police failed to notify the Board of Supervisors even though he had been specifically told they wanted to know about any incident that could have a liability to the Township," says the report.
    Turner stated that he has taken care of everything mentioned in the report except for completing a promotions policy. He has begun working on personnel files and has taken care of all of the policy and procedures complaints mentioned in the report.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies http://www.calea.org/

    My PD was the first accredited department in South Carolina.

    There are only three accredited municipal police agencies in Wisconsin, Appleton, Beloit and Oshkosh.

    These example 'cases' might be interesting reading
    http://www.calea.org/Online/Accreditationworks/aw.htm

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    What exactly makes those three different from the others? Just curious.
    Is it the level of training? Or is it the fact that they know someone is checking up on them?


Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •