$10,000 Wisconsin OC Award

imported post

Often it is informative to see what is happening on another State's forum:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/39821.html

[line]
Court finds in favor of man after unlawful open-carry arrest on his front porch March 8, 9:05 AM National Hunting Examiner Jake Jones terms of use.


Terms of Use
ShareThis
Wisconsin Carry is reporting success in a lawsuit brought against two Racine, WIpolice officers, the city of Racine, WI.
On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in Racine.
In this lawsuit we challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on 2 Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.
A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:
Hannan-Rock was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call, observed and questioned Frank because he was open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”
Hannan-Rockwas unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally seized. He was later released without being charged.
Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank’s behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.
Nik Clark, Wisconsin CarryChairman said "We look forward to the precedent that this case will set for other municipalities who’s police officers operate outside of their legal authority and unlawfully detain, arrest, and seize property of law-abiding open-carriers."
A copy of the judgement can be viewed here:

imported post

Awesome news. I like that the officers were held individually responsible for their actions.

Any more cops want to donate to Wisconsin Carry's war chest?

imported post

Hopefully, for everyone's sake, the LEO's around the country will get the message that they can't be doing this (violating Citizens' rights re firearms carry/searches/ seizures) without risking personal liability.

There is not much excuse any more for officers pleading ignorance on these subjects - (4th violations absent RAS, PC), open carry, etc.

All LEOs reading this should be bugging their departments to get ACCURATE, up-to-date training on these issues. Don't miss this opportunity to learn. When the McDonald v. Chicago ruling comes down in June, you'll be even further behind the learning curve. Many (unfortunately not all) States & communities will revise many of their firearms laws in the spirit of the ruling.

Unfortunately, the intransigent jurisdictions and officers will stick to their "gun laws" (and illegal searches/seizures). They'll have to learn the expensive way.

imported post

After incorporation we should follow in WI's footsteps. Challenging 626.9, illegal searches/seizures, unlawful detainments, disqualifying QI...

I'm just hoping the judges dont feel that "public safety" will continue to outweigh our rights. Thats why we'll have to play up to the fed courts imho.

imported post

I seem to recall that "The Right People" recommended that we have $10,000 available before we Open-Carry.
I wonder if it's okay to pick it up along the way.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I like that the officers were held individually responsible for their actions.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this from, "individually responsible", please?

Here's the judgment

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a), IT IS ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $10,000.00, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, is entered in favor of plaintiffs, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and Frank Hannan Rock and against defendants, City of Racine, Sgt. Nethery, and R. Prince, as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action.

Click to expand...

I'd copy the 'Prayer for Relief' but it is an image.

In none of the court documents do I recall "individually responsible". Indeed, I see no means of enforcement of the judgment that makes the individuals liable.

imported post

Hoo-Rah for Open Carry

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I like that the officers were held individually responsible for their actions.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this from, "individually responsible", please?

Here's the judgment

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a), IT IS ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $10,000.00, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, is entered in favor of plaintiffs, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and Frank Hannan Rock and against defendants, City of Racine, Sgt. Nethery, and R. Prince, as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action.

Click to expand...

I'd copy the 'Prayer for Relief' but it is an image.

In none of the court documents do I recall "individually responsible". Indeed, I see no means of enforcement of the judgment that makes the individuals liable.

Click to expand...

Doug,

I am not a lawyer so I need some clarification if possible:

1. The Court Judgment indicates that the $10,000 judgment is against the officers (as well as the City). Why couldn't the plaintiffs use any legal procedures (that the State of Wisconsin allows) for collection of $10,000 against any of the 3 named defendants?

2. In Wisconsin, are the plaintiffs allowed to collect the full judgment from any one of the 3 named defendants or is there another formula which must be applied to determine how much, if any, is collected from each defendant. Do the officers have some sort of immunity from judgments being collected from them?

3. If there is no means of collecting any judgments against them, what would be the point of naming the officers in the suit?


Since this is the California board, these may be better questions for the Wisconsin forum, but it would seem important to know that if judgments are entered against officers for rights violations, there is some mechanism for enforcement/collection of the Judgment award. Color me confused.

imported post

I too am not an attorney I-ANAL. And, yes, questions like that should be asked of the plaintiffs on the WI sub-forum.

I was party to a class action victory against the US for back pay and interest, which we received. We did not the settlement's penalty since there is no way that I know of to bring an enforcement action against the sovereign.

imported post

Thanks Doug. I'll see if I can find any info re collections/enforcement of the Judgment by asking some questions in the original WI thread.

imported post

i'm stumped, saying i get questioned in an area around my house where people shoot daily, i would not have to give my name!