• 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.

FWI CIty of Milwaukee District #2

jrm

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
190
Location
, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Satisfied by an oral statement without a seizure of papers.

968.24 ...and may demand the name and address of the person
...
What gets interesting is what is the "penalty" for refusing to accede to the "demand?" This is in the "commencement of criminal proceedings" chapter of the statutes, so it is not a criminal provision per se.

And, regardless of what it says in the statute. it must comply with the 4th Amendment. It seems readily apparent, at this point, that demanding someone's name when that someone is standing on his front porch, and having that someone refuse to give his name, is not grounds for a ride to the graybar hotel. Such a ride is actually kind of expensive -- for the cabbie.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

the poster was asked a slew of questions; you leo? you a felon? why you carrying? and asked for i.d. never asked if he lived there.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

McX wrote:
the poster was asked a slew of questions; you leo? you a felon? why you carrying? and asked for i.d. never asked if he lived there.

Yesterday at the picnic there were a few discussions of incidents like this. What we tend to forget (unless it happens to you) is that usually we are not ready with an answer or a "comeback". What I mean is we don't expect anyone to confront us for doing nothing illegal but...we KNOW sooner or later that we WILL be confronted by someone....whether it is LEO or an irate person who just hates us and our gun rights.

We run a lot of scenarios through our mind as to what we would do and/or say in various situations but when it happens, especially with LEO our brains tend to freeze a bit because we are usually intimidated.

I was asked by a deputy if I was LEO. First thing he asked when he saw my gun. My response was "Nooooooo". That was about it. What would you do if the LEO continued on? My point is it is difficult to formulate and EXECUTE an action based on an event even if you planned for it when it happens. We just don't expect it to ever have to use "the plan" we formulated.

The best thing to do is SAY NOTHING. But, even that is difficult because we are PEOPLE and we like to converse our thoughts with others.:lol:
 

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Satisfied by an oral statement without a seizure of papers.

968.24 Temporary 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
This supposedly happened on private property
If a Criminal violation takes place on Private Property, LEO need only a lawful reason to be there. In the vicinity or called to a location. Like as if they were driving by. Although depending how far away they actually were, like a long long long driveway or something to that affect.
And why this reference to "Papers" Doug?
Where does it actually pertain?
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

qball54208 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Satisfied by an oral statement without a seizure of papers.

968.24 Temporary 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
This supposedly happened on private property
If a Criminal violation takes place on Private Property, LEO need only a lawful reason to be there. In the vicinity or called to a location. Like as if they were driving by. Although depending how far away they actually were, like a long long long driveway or something to that affect.
And why this reference to "Papers" Doug?
Where does it actually pertain?
What criminal violation took place? I have yet to see a post of someone submitting an open records request as of yet so I am still calling shenanigans on this. if this is for real there should be a record. The police have to notify dispatch anytime they leave the squad.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

P229Sig357DAK wrote:
He also informed me that there is a new procedure in place that if anyone calls in that there is a person with a sidearm and that they are uncomfortable with this...that the police will now come and arrest you for "disturbing the peace"
This would be a DC citationand according to the AG's memo there would not be enough to issue a citation without there being more than just the individual open carrying a firearm.

Otherwise they could issue an ordinance violation for disturbing the peace, however, that will only get by if you refuse to fight it.

Shenanigans, shenanigans, shenanigans!
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Would have it been alright just to ask them if you are being detained, and refuse to ID or answer any questions when they first contacted you?

Give some alternative responses here.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
imported post

xenophon wrote:
Would have it been alright just to ask them if you are being detained, and refuse to ID or answer any questions when they first contacted you?

Give some alternative responses here.
Exactly. You don't have to identify yourself to the police if you are on your own property.
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

protias wrote:
xenophon wrote:
Would have it been alright just to ask them if you are being detained, and refuse to ID or answer any questions when they first contacted you?

Give some alternative responses here.
Exactly. You don't have to identify yourself to the police if you are on your own property.
Where else can you refuse? I.e. if you are walking down the street? I thought only if you were being detained, you had to? (just trying to clarify here)
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
imported post

xenophon wrote:
protias wrote:
xenophon wrote:
Would have it been alright just to ask them if you are being detained, and refuse to ID or answer any questions when they first contacted you?

Give some alternative responses here.
Exactly. You don't have to identify yourself to the police if you are on your own property.
Where else can you refuse? I.e. if you are walking down the street? I thought only if you were being detained, you had to? (just trying to clarify here)
Sorry, I should have clarified. You are right, you don't have to identify yourself, but especially not on your own property (remember what happened to Frank?).
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

and then i must ask; if the police enter onto your property, to attempt to induce you to produce i.d.- again while on your own property, would that constitute tresspass on their part? you have committed no crime, i don't see any Ras.
 

Brass Magnet

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

McX wrote:
and then i must ask; if the police enter onto your property, to attempt to induce you to produce i.d.- again while on your own property, would that constitute tresspass on their part? you have committed no crime, i don't see any Ras.
My non-legal opinion would be that if they didn't have RAS, you can tell them to leave and as soon as they don't comply; it's tresspassing. Good luck finding an LEO that would write the ticket for you though.
 

Brass Magnet

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

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Brass Magnet wrote:
it's tresspassing. Good luck finding an LEO that would write the ticket for you though.
I-ANAL, a coward and an aśśhole. I believe that Wisconsin presumes notice, effective and constructive. See 'Criminal Trespass to Property' and Buildings. For instance, posting is not required.

You are correct, however; I believe they apply some form of "implied consent" for someone to walk up your driveway (for instance) totalk to yousomething.

It may not be in the statute but the way I think about it; if there was no form of this; I couldn't walk onto a land owners property to converse with him and ask for permission to hunt on said property. I couldn't walk up and knock on someones door to ask to borrow a cup of sugar.

That being said; as soon as you tell them to leave and they don't comply, it's surely tresspassing.
 
Top