Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: Detained for Open Carrying at Metcalfe's Sentry in Madison

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    I'm just going to go straight into it while it's as fresh in my memory as it's going to be. Two friends came to stay for the weekend, and we decided to go to the local Sentry to get stuff for dinner. I have open carried at this Sentry for months, without issue, even talking to staff while carrying. The only remark I've ever gotten was from a younger cashier who asked what you needed to do to carry, and I obliged him.

    We arrived about 1:30PM. I was the only person OCing, as my friend was from out of state and wanted to see what the reaction of people was like. He got a very good account, it seems.

    After being in the store for 20 minutes, while separated from the group, I was approached by a store employee who looked about 18, clearly unnerved, who stopped me and asked me "is that a gun?". I answered that it was, and he explained that they don't allow guns in the store because it scares their customers. I informed him that I had open carried on many occasions in the store, and he replied "Not while I've been working", which is unlikely unless he's new, since I shop there regularly. I asked if it was their policy, and he said it was, which I was led otherwise to believe months ago when I contacted their store, and was told they have no policy on firearms. During the conversation, he kept tapping something on his belt that seemed to be attached to his ear piece, and made remarks like "Yeah, I am". I finally told him that if that was their policy, I would no longer be shopping there. He asked if he could give me a card with the manager's information, and led me to the front desk near the door. He wrote down the names of the managers and handed it to me. I informed him that I would need to tell the people I was with that I would be outside. Hesitantly, he agreed. I let my group know I was going out to the car and got the keys. Unloaded, encased, and out of reach, and I thought it was over. Not the first time I'd been kicked out. First time for what happened next, though.

    When I saw uniformed officers coming towards the car, I took a deep breath and tried to keep calm. I haven't had many encounters with law enforcement, so I was fairly nervous. They stopped us as we began to pull out, and we pulled back in. After about ten seconds where they didn't do anything, I began to get out of the car to see what the problem was, and was asked by Police Officer M. Ott to stay in the car. I was in the front passenger seat, and both myself and the driver rolled down our windows. The details here may be sketchy, because I was scared, but I'll do my best to recount.

    He tapped on the window just before I rolled it down. He asked "What's with the holster?" I responded "lawfully open carrying". He told me that they had had calls from within the store, I think from customers but it could have been store employees too, I figure. He told me they were required to respond to them. He asked me where the gun was, and I responded unloaded and encased. He asked if it was in the trunk, and I said no. He asked where, and I said it was out of reach. He then asked for my ID, which I gave. He asked if it was my current address, which it wasn't. I said no, and then he requested my current address and phone number, which I gave. He said they would need to go talk to people inside to see what they were thinking, or something to that effect. He said to wait there, which I took as a clear sign of detainment. Another officer, whose name I failed to get(I know, I know), stayed by my side of the car while this went on. He had his hand constantly covering his weapon, and asked if I was "exercising my Second Amendment rights" and other comments that I could tell were an attempt to try and trap me into what they nailed Yates for. I responded "self-defense". He asked what kind of gun it was, I responded "pistol". He asked what kind, I responded "Bersa". He asked me to repeat it, and I did. Then he stopped initiating conversation.

    After about 5 minutes, my friend said I should ask clearly if I was being detained, and I did. He said I was. I asked if there was a charge, and he responded that they didn't need one to lawfully detain me. We had to wait a total of about 15-20 minutes, and made small talk amongst ourselves. In addition to the officer covering me on the passenger side, there were two other uniforms to the rear left of the car, one in blue rather than black, whose designation I was unsure of, and a while uniform which I recognized as mall security(This Sentry is basically part of a small mall). My friend says there were three more officers congregating a few cars up. When we eventually left, I saw that there were three cars, one MPD, one the security people for that mall, and another which I couldn't make out.

    Eventually, Officer Ott returned, and gave me back my license. At least once he called me by name, which may or may not be important. When he returned, the other officer who appeared happy to draw on me at any moment moved off. Ott, for what it's worth, seemed less hostile than the other one. He basically told me that what I did was legal(Duh), and that in Madison, the culture is uncomfortable with guns(Duh) and that if I continued to carry, and people got upset and asked that I be arrested, these are his words: I would expect to be arrested. I mainly nodded or just grunted in response. He gave me some more of the spiel, but said I wasn't going to be charged with anything. Afterwards, the guy in the blue outfit, who may or may not have been security, who looked rather amused at the situation, said that the manager had told him to inform me that I was no longer welcome on the property, which included the whole mall, and that if I were to return, that it would be trespassing. I told him I had no plans to return, armed or not. After that, they sent us on our way.

    I'm sure there are missing details, but I'm still trying to fight back the adrenalin. Might remember more later.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    One more detail I remember. Officer Ott also at one point implied that I might be with "those people downtown". I didn't respond.

    Wonder if those were the people that were talked about in that email which said not to issue tickets to unless there was probable cause for DC.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    We need a new name for this - "Mad-Town Carry"?

    What's up there in Madison? Anyway, do re-contact corp. management and complain that they have a rogue employee not following their guidance and calling police on paying customers, see what they say.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    He basically told me that what I did was legal(Duh), and that in Madison, the culture is uncomfortable with guns(Duh) and that if I continued to carry, and people got upset and asked that I be arrested, these are his words: I would expect to be arrested.

    Wis. Stat. § 941.23which is your statutory authority to open carry, is also the law in Madison.

    In case your interested, here is another Madison police officers thoughts on the Yates case and open carry.

    I just heard about the citation to that man who had the audacity to legally carry an unconcealed handgun. If he indeed did nothing but possess the sidearm and did nothing behaviorwise to cause concern, he clearly was not in violation of any ordinance. I believe that our Attorney General stated the same earlier this year. Just because someone is disturbed, does not make it a disturbance. It must be reasonable. For instance, if a person has a phobia about dogs and freaks out when he/she sees someone walking a dog and calls the police, that does not make the dogwalker disorderly. If a person w/hoplophobia ( which this city is full of...) is disturbed by the presence of a gun, thisequally does not make a reasonable or credible disturbance.I would not issue in this case, at least as stated...

    Hypersensitive people have no right not to be offended by the sight of your gun. Disorderly conduct is much more than someone being disturbed or upset. Here it is one more time.

    Section 947.01 provides: "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor." To prosecute a defendant for a violation of this statute, the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. See State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis.2d 497, 514, 164 N.W.2d 512 (1969). Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Id. Under both elements, "[i]t is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation." State v. Maker, 48 Wis.2d 612, 616, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).

    On the other hand, this account is totally different than what happened to Brad Krause one year ago today. Progress is being made by people who simply open carry.As more people do it, it will stop being considered abnormal behavior, even in Madison.

    Good job!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    this is another reason i want a recorder before i venture out on my own

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

    Post imported post

    Hmm, six months to the day.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, what if the OC'ers requested the person that called 911 be cited for filing a false police report?

    I mean if the OC'er isn't being disorderly then the caller lied.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    some of you guys more familiar with the "books", please correct me if i'm wrong. i do NOT want to spread wrong information. but assuming i have this correct, then..........

    .....to the original poster:


    167.31(2)(b) Uncased Transport of Firearm in Vehicle

    While conducting field interviews, officers are reminded of the following:

    1. It must occur in a public place.
    2. The officer must identify himself/herself as a law enforcement officer.
    3. The officer must reasonably suspect that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. This quantum is not the same as probable cause to arrest; it is less than that, but more than "mere suspicion."



    and #4 applies quite a bit in this situation I believe




    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."

  9. #9
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    You do have it correct. I carry a copy of that one on me at all times...

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

    Post imported post

    scorpio_vette wrote:
    167.31(2)(b) Uncased Transport of Firearm in Vehicle

    While conducting field interviews, officers are reminded of the following:

    1. It must occur in a public place.
    2. The officer must identify himself/herself as a law enforcement officer.
    3. The officer must reasonably suspect that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. This quantum is not the same as probable cause to arrest; it is less than that, but more than "mere suspicion."

    and #4 applies quite a bit in this situation I believe

    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."
    167.31(2)(b) is a faulty citation if, indeed, that is what is intended.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    doug i'm not sure what you mean by faulty citation. and what you mean regarding my post. can you explain please??? as i said, i do NOT want to be giving wrong information.

    thanks

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

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 167 has nothing to do with 'interviews' that I know. I searched 167 for the words "field" and "interview" and got no hits. What does your mention of 167 have to do with the bulk of your post about Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4?

    Do you have a citation for "officers being reminded of the following"?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    when the original poster said:

    He tapped on the window just before I rolled it down. He asked "What's with the holster?" I responded "lawfully open carrying". He told me that they had had calls from within the store, I think from customers but it could have been store employees too, I figure. He told me they were required to respond to them. He asked me where the gun was, and I responded unloaded and encased. He asked if it was in the trunk, and I said no. He asked where, and I said it was out of reach. He then asked for my ID, which I gave. He asked if it was my current address, which it wasn't. I said no, and then he requested my current address and phone number, which I gave. He said they would need to go talk to people inside to see what they were thinking, or something to that effect. He said to wait there, which I took as a clear sign of detainment. Another officer, whose name I failed to get(I know, I know), stayed by my side of the car while this went on. He had his hand constantly covering his weapon, and asked if I was "exercising my Second Amendment rights" and other comments that I could tell were an attempt to try and trap me into what they nailed Yates for. I responded "self-defense". He asked what kind of gun it was, I responded "pistol". He asked what kind, I responded "Bersa". He asked me to repeat it, and I did. Then he stopped initiating conversation.
    i figured that #4 would have applied because he didn't have to identify himself, and or answer all the questions. because at that point anything at all that he could have said may or may not have been used against him had it escalated to the point of arrest.


    so my believe/understanding is that he isn't required to answer any of the questions, and not required to identify himself, and unless the officer had actual reason to believe otherwise, would have to let him go.

    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.

    or am i understanding this incorrectly???

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    M-R,

    Your tale sounds like a F'ed-up event from the moment of police contact.
    I probably would have replied differently to the officers questions, but Imost likelyhave a little less tolerance for being harassed than you do.

    When the officer asked "What kind of gun" I would have most likely replied with "what gun?, I don't see a gun anywhere but on your hip" (sinceyours was not viewable from the outside of the vehicle) just to throw a snag into his little fishing expedition. You are not obstructing by lying to him, your just not answering a question by replying to his question with one of your own.

    We really need to get some small O-C gatherings going on in Madison. Yates got nailed for doing nothing wrong, you got treated like a criminal for doing nothing wrong. We need to make a statement in that town by carrying in groups on a regular basis.

    In the Yates ordeal, it was stated that he got arrested because of the reaction of someone else. And I saw a great analogy in that thread which I think makes perfect sense.

    If I am walking my dog on a leash and some woman that is terrified of dogs, freaks out and calls thepolice, and the police respond, do they plan on arresting me because a woman was scared of my perfectly behaved, obedient, leashed and legal canine companion? Am I disorderly because this woman is scared of a German Shepherd? or is the person that is scared of the dog the one being disorderly for calling the police on an fully acceptable legal behavior? What if a K-9 unit responded to her 911 call, would they need to arrest themselves for scaring her even more because they have a dog too?



    We need to stand up to these tyrantsand let them know we will tolerate it.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran logan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greeley, CO
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    If I am walking my dog on a leash and some woman that is terrified of dogs, freaks out and calls thepolice, and the police respond, do they plan on arresting me because a woman was scared of my perfectly behaved, obedient, leashed and legal canine companion? Am I disorderly because this woman is scared of a German Shepherd? or is the person that is scared of the dog the one being disorderly for calling the police on an fully acceptable legal behavior? What if a K-9 unit responded to her 911 call, would they need to arrest themselves for scaring her even more because they have a dog too?
    LOL, arrest themselves...that's pretty good.

    Agree with you though, but maybe instead of small gatherings which would most likely be at a house, somebody in the area should host one at a public park!

    But ya, that situation is pretty retarded. I think 911 dispatchers need to start asking more questions to figure out what the person with the gun is doing. If he's shopping...and not waving a gun around demanding money...I think they shouldn't bother sending police.
    Logan - Laugh lots, Love Often, and Defend the Irreplaceable
    Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP
    CC permits: MN, FL, NH, PA and CO

    Member of:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc., Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and National Rifle Association

  16. #16
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Hmmm, what if the OC'ers requested the person that called 911 be cited for filing a false police report?

    I mean if the OC'er isn't being disorderly then the caller lied.
    Well, it is not a lie. Calling to report that there is a man with a gun is making a true statement. To say that the sight of an armed person bothers you, scares you, that you don't like it, or that you want the person to leave are also true statements. You can accuse the callers of being "fraidy cats" or pussies or ignoramuses... but it is not a violation of any law for them to be that way.

    It is the police who make a preliminary conclusion as to whether certain conduct is disorderly and worthy of a citation. It is troubling, unfortunate, and wrong that the police want to put much weight on how the caller "feels."

    The police ought to consider whether there was an actual disturbance. It isn't much of a "disturbance" if the most notable objective reaction is that it prompted someone to reach for their phone. It's not as if it caused everyone in the store to dive for cover or run for the doors, wet their pants, or to start screaming and crying. That would, arguably, be a disturbance. There are no reports of that happening in the state. No-- it caused some guy to dial the police. Period. Wow, big riot huh?

    So, unless there are a number of instances of actual disturbances happening, one cannot easily argue that OCing creates or "tends" to create a disturbance. It hasn't and it doesn't. Obviously its only tendency is to meet with the disapproval of a minority of people, but that is hardly the same as having a tendency to create a disturbance.
    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"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Reporting aMWAG callfor someone exercising their protected right to do so:

    I believe that is wrongful use/abuse of the 911 system. (in Nutczaks mind)
    Similar to the FL fastfood fiascos where one guy called 911 to report burger king was out of iced tea, and the McDonald'sincident a week laterwhere they were out of chicken McNuggets.
    Neither event was a life or death emergency nor was it an emergency situation whenTravis was exercising his 2Arights. The FL callers each got cited for 911 abuse.

    If I am bothered by a ghetto-hooptie with 24" wheels and an obnoxious paint job, is it an emergency? would it be consideredabuse of the 911 system to call the police because the occupants may be frightening people because they are not caucasian and it scares me? Is it illegal to be a non-white in this country, Should they be arrested becuase other black people may have commited a crime and the occupants of this car are the same color.

    How about a group of motorcycle riders in full leather with their club colors on their back, beards down to their crotch, justriding down the highway exercising their 1A rights by displaying their affiliation with a club, maybe even a MIA flag.
    Is calling 911 to report that legal behavior where no crime is committed just because someone finds that scene to be scary, is ita valid complaint that requires police intervention, I call it abuse of the 911 system! Maybe we need to start a letter writing campaign to the prosecutor and judge in this case and bring up valid points like we are discussing here.

    We couldn't get a showing together in Madison on such short notice, so lets start a letter writing campaign to show our disgust with the police department and the prosecutor.
    We (asWI OCDO members)have already gotten their attention and they expected us to "Descend upon Madison to critique their response to people O-C'ing.
    If we cannot do it in person right now, let our disgust be known by phone and mail contacts. How about penning opinion for printin local papers. We need to show support of Travis and let the city of Madison know we will not tolerate their actions when our rights are dismissed and blatantly trampled upon by the police and justice system. Enough is enough!

    I/Wehave not given up making an O-Cshowing of force in Madison, but we have taken it to PM's and e-mails to keep it out of the public eye and keep the element of surpirse in our favor and not broadcast our plans so they can meet us with what they feel would be appropraite force to discourage us.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    Don't ASK if you are free to go.... ESTABLISH that you are:

    Am I under arrest? Open the bid with the highest card as they must 'trump' you to retain authority. I dare say 99.9% of the time this will catch them off guard and they will respond in the negative. This does two things:
    1: If you ARE under arrest, you now know to **** to protect yourself.
    2: If you are NOT under arrest, you have established such through their own statements, and just trumped any future claims of 'resisting arrest' as you peacefully walk away (after the following).


    Am I being detained?
    Same as above....establish through their own statements that you are NOT being detained. If they indicate that you ARE being detained, DEMAND RAS. Do not relent. It would seem to be general consensus that they are not required to articulate their suspicion to YOU, just that they have it for the judge, but I maintain that if they truly do have RAS then it should be no problem to voice to YOU it in the instant matter in order for you to know that they are not playing on (your) ignorance and trying to trick (you) into voluntarily surrendering your rights secured by the fourth and fifth.

    If they indicate that you are NOT being detained, do not ASKif you are free to leave...make it a statement that you ARE leaving:

    "Thank you. Having established through your own statements (Emphasize that line!), that I am NOT under arrest NOR being detained I am terminating this encounter and departing forthwith (or 'leaving immediately' if that more natural to your speech patterns). I leave you in peace, and bid you good day."

    Then turn and WALK. Any action on their part that hinders your free movement from that point on is a direct CRIMINAL violation of 18USC sec 242. Remember....recorders are your friends.

    I have had folks say that the whole "departing forthwith" and "I leave you in peace" thing was a little over the top, but I wanted to include a formal statement to establish that I was offering no resistance to any exercise of lawful authority but simply removing myself from their presence and the olde-tyme language pattern seemed to get the point across the best.



  19. #19
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Hmmm, what if the OC'ers requested the person that called 911 be cited for filing a false police report?

    I mean if the OC'er isn't being disorderly then the caller lied.
    Well, it is not a lie. Calling to report that there is a man with a gun is making a true statement. To say that the sight of an armed person bothers you, scares you, that you don't like it, or that you want the person to leave are also true statements. You can accuse the callers of being "fraidy cats" or pussies or ignoramuses... but it is not a violation of any law for them to be that way.

    It is the police who make a preliminary conclusion as to whether certain conduct is disorderly and worthy of a citation. It is troubling, unfortunate, and wrong that the police want to put much weight on how the caller "feels."

    The police ought to consider whether there was an actual disturbance. It isn't much of a "disturbance" if the most notable objective reaction is that it prompted someone to reach for their phone. It's not as if it caused everyone in the store to dive for cover or run for the doors, wet their pants, or to start screaming and crying. That would, arguably, be a disturbance. There are no reports of that happening in the state. No-- it caused some guy to dial the police. Period. Wow, big riot huh?

    So, unless there are a number of instances of actual disturbances happening, one cannot easily argue that OCing creates or "tends" to create a disturbance. It hasn't and it doesn't. Obviously its only tendency is to meet with the disapproval of a minority of people, but that is hardly the same as having a tendency to create a disturbance.
    I like the way you think.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post



    From the State Supreme Court decision in State v. Douglas D.

    ¶27 Douglas is correct insofar as he indicates that not

    all conduct which causes personal discomfort in others

    necessarily falls within the ambit of disorderly conduct. This

    court has held as much:

    [Section 947.01] does not imply that all conduct which

    tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only

    such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of

    decency or propriety of the community is included.

    The statute does not punish a person for conduct which

    might possibly offend some hypercritical individual.

    The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to

    proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the

    normal sensibilities of average persons or which

    constitute significantly abusive or disturbing

    demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.

    Zwicker, 41 Wis. 2d at 508. Thus, we agree that § 947.01

    requires more than mere offensive speech or behavior

    Emphasis is mine

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok DEMAND RAS[/b].

    [/quote]

    sorry. what is RAS???

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Reasonable and Articulate Suspicion.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    thanks.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Reasonable and Articulate Suspicion.
    Reasonable articulable suspicion.

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

    Post imported post

    oops yeah drop the and, sorry

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
  •