I'll list the outline headings and only expand into the associated paragraph when I thought it remarkable or worth repeating.
I. FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Commented that the Justice examined and defined each word and clause of the 2A resolving years of questions and foreclosing debate.
A. Second Amendment - U. S. Const:
1. Current Constitutional Battleground: Only a handful (12) of Supreme Court interpretive decisions.
B. Landmark Decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):... guarantee the individual right
Admits the possibility of "municipal required training".
1. Well regulated militia: ... implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...
There is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.
2. Security of a Free State: ... terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, ...
3. People: ... not an unspecified subset.
4. Bear: ... armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person."
6. Arms: "The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today." ... Another 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."
C. Wisconsin's Right to Bear Arms: ... A Wisconsin citizen has a constitutionally protected right to openly carry a firearm for any of the enumerated purposes, absent the application of a reasonable regulation properly imposed as an exercise of police power.
D. Fourth Amendment -- U.S. Const:
"Legal technicians" contrasted with legal professionals and legal citizens.
1. Purpose: Protects two fundamental liberty interests -- the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.
2. "Search": A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent to the government.
3. "Seizure": A seizure refers to the interference with an individual's possessory interest in property. To meet the definition of an unreasonable seizure, the property's owner must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the items seized. A person is seized when law enforcement personnel use physical force to restrain the person if a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would not feel free to leave the situation.
4. Search Warrant Requirements: ... A judge can find probable cause only b[y] examining the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Sims, 553 F.3rd 580 (7th Cir. 2009)
5. Arrest Exception: Officers can search and seize objects on a person if the officer has placed the person under arrest. Arizona v. Grant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1723-1724 (2009) (Police officers' warrantless search of an arrestee's vehicle incidental t his arrest was unconstitutional because (i) the arrestee was not within reaching distance of the vehicle or (ii) the officers did not have a reasonable belief that "evidence of the offense of arrest" might be found int he vehicle.). The exception[DH emphasis] derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations. Id. This exception extends to situations in which the police in good-faith mistakenly arrest someone and seize contraband during the search. See Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009) (where suspect was arrested stale search warrant ... "
6. Probable Cause: At times, the law permits officers to make warrantless searches and seizures if they find that they have probable cause. Determining probable cause requires a consideration of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an officer acted in accord with an objectively reasonable officer prior[DH emphasis] to making the arrest. See Purcell V. Mason, 527 F.3d 615, 626 (7th Cir. 2008) (probable cause barred § 1983 claim); Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (probable cause standard is a "practical, nontechnical conception" that deals with the "factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not "legal technicians act" and is "a fluid concept" that is "not readily or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules.")
Wisconsin statute chapters numbered 900 and above are considered criminal law.
"If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he man, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender." Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (arrest for seatbelt violation not unreasonable). If an arrest is otherwise reasonable, the fact that it is not for an arrestable offense does not make it unconstitutional." Virginia v. Moore, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1606-1607 (2008) (no violation where officers arrested suspect, and subsequently searched, for driving on a suspended license, even though state law prohibited such arrest).
There was much comment on these cases considered remarkable by the lecturer.
8. Terry Stop based on Reasonable Suspicion: A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based on specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 21-22 (1968). ...
a. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
b. United States v. Ubiles, 244 F.3rd 213 (3rd Circ. 2000)
c. Brown v. Milwaukee, 288 F.Supp.2d 962 (E.D. Wis. 2003)
E. Interplay of Right to Bear Arms with Wisconsin's Disorderly Conduct Statute: "Whoever, in a public or a private place, engages in vilent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor." Wis. Stat. 947.01. Two elements to convict: (a) violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct; (b) the conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. State v. Douglas d., 2001 WI 47, ¶15, 243 Wis.2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725An open case in the Eastern District.
1. Wisconsin Attorney General's Advisory Memorandum April 20, 2009: Continuing ...