• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Racine, WI Police Department Executes "Extraordinary Rendition" Snatch of Open Car

S

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
Preaching to the choir.

I know all about how an officer will try to save face after an illegal detention and cite.
Click to expand...
the police generally understand 3 things.

1. Losing money through lawsuits
2. Losing their jobs
3. Being investigated, and hopefully charged and convicted by the feds for Constitutional rights violations...

when enough of them are bankrupted in lawsuits, have lost their jobs and certifications and are in jail--then those who remain might learn to treat us a little better.
 
O

opencarrybilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
164
Location
Loveland, Colorado, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
thx997303 wrote:
Preaching to the choir.

I know all about how an officer will try to save face after an illegal detention and cite.
Click to expand...
the police generally understand 3 things.

1. Losing money through lawsuits
2. Losing their jobs
3. Being investigated, and hopefully charged and convicted by the feds for Constitutional rights violations...

when enough of them are bankrupted in lawsuits, have lost their jobs and certifications and are in jail--then those who remain might learn to treat us a little better.
Click to expand...

You are right. And, if you will permit, may I ask you to keep on the DOJ and the Larimer County DA for me - for The People, if I may be so bold. Please see "Loveland Update" in the Colorado section (Is that whatit's called, a "section"?)

Thanks,

Bill
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
imported post

968.24Temporary 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.

The gentleman appears to have misinterpreted the whole 'can't ask me for ID unless you're arresting me' thing. He does seem required to provide his name, address and an explanation of his conduct, IF they have reasonable articulable suspicion that he did, was or is about to yada-yada-yada.
"Hi, I'm John Smith and I live here at 1313 Mockingbird lane, and I'm standing on my porch."
"Can you Prove that, Sir?"
"No, I believe it's up to you to prove I'm Not."

Apparently though, the officers lacked any RAS that any illegality was afoot.
 
P

Passive101

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
223
Location
, ,
imported post

Fallschirmjäger wrote:
968.24Temporary 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.

The gentleman appears to have misinterpreted the whole 'can't ask me for ID unless you're arresting me' thing. He does seem required to provide his name, address and an explanation of his conduct, IF they have reasonable articulable suspicion that he did, was or is about to yada-yada-yada.
"Hi, I'm John Smith and I live here at 1313 Mockingbird lane, and I'm standing on my porch."
"Can you Prove that, Sir?"
"No, I believe it's up to you to prove I'm Not."

Apparently though, the officers lacked any RAS that any illegality was afoot.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a public place. he was on his property.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Fallschirmjäger wrote:
The gentleman appears to have misinterpreted the whole 'can't ask me for ID unless you're arresting me' thing. He does seem required to provide his name, address and an explanation of his conduct
Click to expand...
Well, according to newspapers, he ws not charged with violating 968.24, and 968.24 appears not to have any penalty attached to it for failing to respond - the statute merely appears to codify what the S. Ct. in terry said a long time ago, that pursuant to reasonable suspicion, police may detain people and investigate them - and of course the police are allowed to ask questions - and detained people can refuse to answer, except perhaps to refuse state your name says Hiibel, but that case involved a state statute establishing a penalty for failing to at least state your name.
 
ROOK_WI

ROOK_WI

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
131
Location
Franklin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The Van Hollen memo states in Paragraph Nine (note bolded sentence):

¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Florida v. Bostick, [/font][/font]501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See United States v. Mendenhall, [/font][/font]446 U.S. 544, 553-54 (1980). Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Florida v. Royer, [/font][/font]460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Bostick, [/font][/font]501 U.S. at 435-36. The person approached need not answer any questions. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See Mendenhall, [/font][/font]446 U.S. at 554.
 
M

M198

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

A few things to think about here. The police responded to a shots fired call from this mans house. If someone was shooting in my neighborhood, I'd like to have my gun with me until the police arrive. Though the recorder and pamphlet does make it suspicious that he was provoking an incident. Also, front porches are considered a public area unless there is a gate and or fence to block access. There is a difference between public/private property and a public/private area. Since the officers were investigating a crime (discharging a firearm within city limits) and he did have a gun, they have the right to demand the citizen identify himself. Most states do not require that you carry state issued ID, but do require you to give name, DOB, and address when asked by an officer for ID. At a minimum, he should have provided that information.
 
S

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

M198 wrote:
There is a difference between public/private property and a public/private area. Since the officers were investigating a crime (discharging a firearm within city limits) and he did have a gun, they have the right to demand the citizen identify himself.
Click to expand...
Then by this logic--the police can demand that every person in the area that they can physically see, whether walking the street, or sitting on a porch, or standing in their yard must also identify themselves...because the police were investigating a possible crime after all.
and that, is bull:cuss:
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
See http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/58583422.htmlwith video - frank comes off like a calm nice guy!
Click to expand...

Also; everyone, there is more information given on this in the Wisconsin thread on the subject.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/31258.html

Every hour the police story seems to change. First, the call suposedly came from his house, then the other unit of the duplex he was living in, then down the street. They are constantly backpeddling and straining toclaim "set up" "set up".
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

M198 wrote:
Since the officers were investigating a crime (discharging a firearm within city limits) and he did have a gun, they have the right to demand the citizen identify himself. Most states do not require that you carry state issued ID, but do require you to give name, DOB, and address when asked by an officer for ID. At a minimum, he should have provided that information.
Click to expand...
I agree you should state your name for self-interested reasons, but no you do not "have to." In fact, no state can require folks to carry IDs, see Kolender v. Lawson.


Read Section 968.24 again - the statue just codifies theofficer's power under Terry to stop you under reasonable suspicion of crime being afoot and ask you questions - thestatue does not create any duty for you to answer at all - and it has no penalty.

Think of it like the opposite of "don't ask, don't tell;" - the police can ask, but you don't have to tell. NOTE: But I think it is a good idea to state you name our of caution, to look reasonable, and to let the police document their stop of you in case of later litigation (AKA self interest).

And as for the obstruction charge, do the Wisconsin police chiefs not even read their own "Wisconsin Police Chief Magazine"?? In the July-August issue of "Wisconsin Police Chief" at http://www.wichiefs.org/Newsletters/July2004Newsletter.pdfthere was an article titled "[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]ARREST FOR REFUSAL TO IDENTIFY? BEWARE OF MISPLACED RELIANCE ON HIIBEL!"[/font][/font]

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]The article tated flatly: "The key to the application of Hiibel is that in order to avoid a Fourth Amendment violation (and a state law false arrest

[align=left]claim) a person may only be arrested for refusing to identify himself if some statute or ordinance makes it unlawful to so refuse[/align]
[align=left]under the circumstances. As the majority acknowledged in Hiibel, “In some states, a suspect’s refusal to identify himself is a[/align]
[align=left]misdemeanor offense or civil violation; in others, it is a factor to be considered in whether the suspect has violated loitering laws.[/align]
[align=left]In other states, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.”[/align]
[align=left]_______________________________________________________________________________________________________[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin has a statute which codifies the right of officers to make Terry stops:[/align][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[align=left]968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. [/font][/font]After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement[/align]
[align=left]officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time[/align]
[align=left]when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a[/align]
[align=left]crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such[/align]
[align=left]detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.[/align]
[align=left]Unlike Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171. 123, however, § 968.24 does not impose an obligation upon the person stopped to identify himself.[/align]
[align=left]This is a critical distinction.[/align]
[align=left]The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that mere refusal to identify oneself following a Terry stop does not constitute[/align]
[align=left]obstructing under § 946.41, Wis. Stats. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 354, 533 N.W.2d 802, 808 (1995): “Mere silence, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute.”[/align][/font][/font]
 
BB62

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

M198 wrote:
...Most states do not require that you carry state issued ID, but do require you to give name, DOB, and address when asked by an officer for ID...
Click to expand...
You have a LOT to learn.

How many posts have you read here on OCDO that you are so wrong?

M198 wrote:
...The police responded to a shots fired call from this mans house...
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
O

OCclint

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Unconstitutional Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, U
imported post

[align=center]10 Personal Safety Tips [from City of Racine's site][/align]

[align=left]Personal safety and crime prevention are easy things to do and should be practiced by all of us everyday. The list below are ten simple precautions to help keep you safe when you’re out and about. [/align]

[align=left]1. Stay alert and tuned in to your surroundings. [/align]

[align=left]2. Send the message that you are calm, confident, alert, and know where you're going. [/align]

[align=left]3. Trust your instincts, they’re there to protect you. [/align]

[align=left]4. Stick to well lighted, well traveled streets avoiding short cuts through overgrown areas and alleyways. [/align]

[align=left]5. Don’t flash fat wads of cash or other tempting targets. [/align]

[align=left]6. Carry purses close to the body and put wallets in the inside coat or front pants pocket. Don’t let purse or pack flaps [/align]

[align=left]hang open. [/align]

[align=left]7. Have keys and cards ready for use; don’t rummage around for things out in the open. [/align]

[align=left]8. Keep your car fueled and in good working order. [/align]

[align=left]9. Always lock up behind yourself. [/align]

[align=left]10. If you are robbed, do not resist. Nothing you are carrying is worth risking your life. [/align]

[align=left]11. Carry a gun in plain sight! *EDITED by OCclint*[/align]
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
thx997303 wrote:
Preaching to the choir.

I know all about how an officer will try to save face after an illegal detention and cite.
Click to expand...
the police generally understand 3 things.

1. Losing money through lawsuits
2. Losing their jobs
3. Being investigated, and hopefully charged and convicted by the feds for Constitutional rights violations...

when enough of them are bankrupted in lawsuits, have lost their jobs and certifications and are in jail--then those who remain might learn to treat us a little better.
Click to expand...

Well, you can delete #3 with Obama's AG

1. He doesn't like us because of the guns we carry

2. He doesn't like the guns we carry.

3. He doesn't like or obey the Constitution.

You are SOL if you're waiting for Eric Holder to investigate.
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

codename_47 wrote:
Yeah, because the previous two AG's were so much better...
Click to expand...
They weren't that much better, that's true. That water has already passed under the bridge. When are you peoplegoing to let it go?
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
Yeah, because the previous two AG's were so much better...
Click to expand...
They weren't that much better, that's true. That water has already passed under the bridge. When are you peoplegoing to let it go?
Click to expand...
I would have thouht the answer to that is fairly obvious... "not until their current guy is 'out' and they will then have 'the new other guy' to complain about again..."

It's a never-ending cycle.

TFred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top