Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: talking to police - hypothetical question

  1. #1
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316

    talking to police - hypothetical question

    Say you are walking down the street, open carrying, somewhere in WI. Not in a school zone or any of that jazz. A police cruiser pulls up and asks to see your ID.

    officer: What are you doing carrying that gun, let me see your ID.
    me: excuse me, am I being detained?

    cop either says yes or no.

    If he says yes, what then? Continue to refuse to show ID or what? Not sure on what would happen if you continue to refuse. Ask if under arrest? What are some good comebacks for the detain part, for cops who give ya trouble.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    This video is a good example of how you can be pushed for giving up your rights but standing your ground can end without your rights being violated. I'm sure plenty of interactions go much better than this and some worse but interesting nonetheless.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQ...=youtube_gdata

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by xenophon View Post
    Say you are walking down the street, open carrying, somewhere in WI. Not in a school zone or any of that jazz. A police cruiser pulls up and asks to see your ID.

    officer: What are you doing carrying that gun, let me see your ID.
    me: excuse me, am I being detained?

    cop either says yes or no.

    If he says yes, what then? Continue to refuse to show ID or what? Not sure on what would happen if you continue to refuse. Ask if under arrest? What are some good comebacks for the detain part, for cops who give ya trouble.
    If the cop answers no, say nothing and keep walking.

    If the cop says yes, you have to ID yourself by giving your name and address, no papers required.

    If he demands your ID, tell him you do not consent to any search or seizure.

    I would assume you have a recorder running?

    They cannot demand physical ID (drivers license) unless you are driving.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    In Wisconsin You Don't Have To Answer ANYTHING.

    You do NOT have to answer any questions of any kind or show any ID or provide your name and address. I refer to the memo from the Wisconsin Attorney General last year. Read the part about the 4th amendment.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/file...nCarryMemo.pdf

    making investigatory stop).
    ¶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. Florida v. Bostick, 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. See United States v. Mendenhall, 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. Florida v. Royer, 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. Bostick, 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. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.
    5

  5. #5
    Regular Member kd6sxa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Quad Cities, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    92

    Smile Be Careful

    With all that said, "What do you feel comfortable with? Unless you are well versed in what your rights are. You could get yourself in some trouble. Keep in mind that the police don't have to be honest with you regarding their intentions. And unless you are a professional witness you may say something that could be easily taken out of context and hurt you. So be careful. Having a personal audio recorder of some type could help you in instances like talking to the police or business owners while OC. I turn on my audio recorder first. Next the gun is loaded and holstered.

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

    Bravo! Well said all!

    I would add that it is the citizen's impression that he is free to walk away or that he is being detained (by the cop's posture, touch, tone of voice, words or the number of cops, cars, weapons, tactics ) that is essential.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    If the cop answers no, say nothing and keep walking.

    If the cop says yes, you have to ID yourself by giving your name and address, no papers required.

    If he demands your ID, tell him you do not consent to any search or seizure.

    .
    We/you are not required to say a single word, or identify ourselves in any way whatsoever when stopped by ther police while on foot. If in a licensed motor vehicle, you ,ust show your drivers license, registration and as of late proof of insurance. WI does not have a "Stop and Identify" law.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    § 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    We/you are not required to say a single word, or identify ourselves in any way whatsoever when stopped by ther police while on foot. If in a licensed motor vehicle, you ,ust show your drivers license, registration and as of late proof of insurance. WI does not have a "Stop and Identify" law.
    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.
    History: 1993 a. 486.
    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
    103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
    A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
    test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
    N.W.2d 386 (1989).
    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
    to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
    155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
    encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
    the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
    532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
    When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
    stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
    App. 1991).
    A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
    often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
    impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
    (Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
    of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
    part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
    N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
    mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
    depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
    himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
    N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
    of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification
    in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613
    N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
    a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
    officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
    3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
    had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
    did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686.
    Under Florida v. J.L, an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
    bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
    the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
    aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
    be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
    2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
    phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
    1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
    if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
    regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
    the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
    an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
    that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
    Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
    at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
    criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
    Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
    could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
    risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
    State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
    of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
    2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
    public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
    police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
    entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
    enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
    N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
    that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
    belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
    but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
    a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
    to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
    675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
    in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
    so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
    159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
    real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
    would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
    a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
    reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
    against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
    County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
    necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
    a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
    v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
    stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
    notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
    drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
    of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, ___ Wis. 2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___,
    07−1578.
    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.
    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.

    Don't miss 968.25 Search during temporary questioning.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    If in a licensed motor vehicle, you ,ust show your drivers license, registration and as of late proof of insurance. WI does not have a "Stop and Identify" law.
    My D/L has been moved to the package with the registration and proof of insurance. Walking around, in my wallet, is my passport card.

  10. #10
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I've been doing some research for my own case...
    Courts including SCOTUS have said that stopping or detaining someone simply because they are carrying a gun, or because someone says they have a gun, is illegal without other RAS of a crime.

    The Krause case in West Allis:
    “reporting that people have firearms is not sufficient for the police to stop them because it is not sufficient by itself to establish the likelihood of a crime”

    Florida v. JL 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1379 (2000):
    The United States Supreme Court: detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment
    "Nor does a mere allegation that a suspect possesses a firearm… justify an officer in stopping a suspect absent the reasonable suspicion required by Terry..."

    Mead:
    ...the court concluded the officer had no right to seize the firearm because the officer "under the facts and circumstances of the case" had no articulable reason to believe a crime was being committed but was instead acting solely on complaints from (statements by) other shoppers.

    St. John v. Alamagordo:
    The federal judge ruled that police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns.

    And finally Ubiles:
    http://openjurist.org/224/f3d/213/un...v-kahli-ubiles
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that a tip that a celebrant at a festival was carrying a pistol was not sufficient to justify a stop of the celebrant.

    If it happened to me again, I'd do things differently. Probably staying in my locked car & calling my lawyer, or if on foot walking away.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 07-13-2010 at 12:20 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    We/you are not required to say a single word, or identify ourselves in any way whatsoever when stopped by ther police while on foot. If in a licensed motor vehicle, you ,ust show your drivers license, registration and as of late proof of insurance. WI does not have a "Stop and Identify" law.
    Didn't SCOTUS just rule that to invoke your right to remain silent you have to say "I invoke my right to remain silent"?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Which case please? Improper vehicle transport § 167.31 or the Fourth Amendment violations. The only WCCA case number is your small claims action.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-13-2010 at 12:32 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Didn't SCOTUS just rule that to invoke your right to remain silent you have to say "I invoke my right to remain silent"?
    SCOTUS alone does not change state law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Which case please? Improper vehicle transport § 167.31 or the Fourth Amendment violations. The only WCCA case number is your small claims action.
    Those cases are all directed toward the stop (which was illegal) since those preclude using anything the police found (or made up) later, during the 4thA violation (search & seizure), as well as their 5thA violation (deprived of property w/o due process of law).
    I don't think the ticket would show up in the court case search, even if they do issue it, since it's not criminal.

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I don't think the ticket would show up in the court case search, even if they do issue it, since it's not criminal.
    Traffic tickets and lawsuit show up.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I don't think the ticket would show up in the court case search, even if they do issue it, since it's not criminal.
    Neither was "Milwaukee County Case Number 1999SC040840" 'criminal' nor traffic citation.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    I d

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    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.
    History: 1993 a. 486.
    Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
    103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
    A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
    test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
    N.W.2d 386 (1989).
    Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
    to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
    155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
    The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
    encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
    the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
    532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
    When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
    stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
    App. 1991).
    A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
    often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
    impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
    (Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
    Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
    of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
    part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
    N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
    That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
    mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
    depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
    himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
    N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
    of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification
    in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613
    N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
    A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
    a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
    officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
    3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
    had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
    did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686.
    Under Florida v. J.L, an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must
    bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
    the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
    aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
    be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
    2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
    An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
    phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
    1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
    if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
    regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
    the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
    an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
    that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
    Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
    When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
    at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
    criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
    Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
    could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
    risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
    State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
    It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
    of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
    2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
    Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
    public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
    police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
    entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
    enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
    N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
    To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
    that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
    belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
    but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
    a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
    to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
    totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
    675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
    The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
    in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
    so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
    159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
    real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
    would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
    a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
    reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
    against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
    County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
    Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
    necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
    a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
    v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
    The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
    stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
    notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
    drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
    of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, ___ Wis. 2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___,
    07−1578.
    Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
    2005.
    NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.

    Don't miss 968.25 Search during temporary questioning.
    Thanks for the good read, Put, Would it not be good PR to show I D ? Even haveing your Recorder on to back you up.
    I mean if they are not being hard asses about it, an you got all your ducks in a row why not go with the flow?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    We have only the rights that we defend. Where did the RKABA go but to the flow?

    Besides, what you quoted and complimented says that the cop must suspect you of a crime before he stops you, "the officer reasonably suspects that [you are] committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime." Him stopping you is an accusation!
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-15-2010 at 07:34 AM.

  19. #19
    McX
    Guest
    Him stopping you is an accusation!

    BLAM! truth to always be remembered! tremendous statement i will always keep in mind Doug!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    I am not a lawyer.

    Don't let a cop play rope-a-dope and let you swing until you make a criminal mistake.

    If your actions are justified and Righteous when a cop interferes then make him take the first swing by commanding that you stop non-consensually. Go about your business until he commands you, or cut to the chase with "Am I free to go? I have no desire to converse."

    If your actions are only privileged, like motoring on your driver's license, then protect your privilege and all of your rights. Acknowledge the command but only stop when you feel safe and secure. Then wait outside your secured and locked vehicle with registration, DL and PoI in hand. The cop may threaten detention for disobeying a legal command but let the courts decide that one. He may Terry your person but a traffic stop does not give RAS to search your vehicle or papers in violation of your 4A Rights. You must surrender your DL, registration and PoI.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Don't let a cop play rope-a-dope and let you swing until you make a criminal mistake.

    If your actions are justified and Righteous when a cop interferes then make him take the first swing by commanding that you stop non-consensually. Go about your business until he commands you, or cut to the chase with "Am I free to go? I have no desire to converse."

    If your actions are only privileged, like motoring on your driver's license, then protect your privilege and all of your rights. Acknowledge the command but only stop when you feel safe and secure. Then wait outside your secured and locked vehicle with registration, DL and PoI in hand. The cop may threaten detention for disobeying a legal command but let the courts decide that one. He may Terry your person but a traffic stop does not give RAS to search your vehicle or papers in violation of your 4A Rights. You must surrender your DL, registration and PoI.
    +1,000!!!!!!!!!!

    Very well stated Doug!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The problem with actually following the law and exercising your RIGHTS in a state that is not a stop an identify state like WI (or where I live, NC) is that there is an increasing trend for LEOs to just arrest you for "contempt of cop", under the color of "resisting arrest" or "disturbing the peace", and then let the courts sort if out.

    False arrests like this are usually thrown out by the courts, but it still takes a large chunk of time and money out of your pocket, so even when the charges are dropped by the court, you STILL get punished.

    This trend toward punishment for "contempt of cop" is a DANGEROUS trend, and the ONLY way it's going to stop is through an equally active and increased frequency of retaliatory Federal Civil Rights lawsuits against such LEOs. If they are hit in their wallets, and sanctioned by the Feds, perhaps they will STOP behaving like schoolyard bullies and back-alley thugs, and start acting like "peace officers" again...

    Through training programs for state and local LEAs sponsored by DOJ and DHS, the average officer is now being trained (by the Feds) that the public is their most dangerous enemy. They are being trained that if you have a Gadsden sticker on your car, or if you reference the Constitution, or your "rights" or the "law" in police interactions, that you could be a "domestic terrorist", and you're possibly one of those "nutjob militia wackos that wants to kill cops and blow up the government".

    So it's no wonder LEOs are getting a iittle cranky these days when people stand on their rights and refuse to comply with unlawful demands, or stand up to illegal bullying under color of law. They are being TRAINED that anyone who does this is a terrorist, and wants to kill cops.

    The problem starts at the TOP. Until we can get the Feds to stop spreading these lies, disinformation and FUD to state and local police forces, this situation will get worse and worse.

    We need to work to take Politics OUT of law enforcement. And that needs to start at the TOP--in Washington DC...

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The problem with actually following the law and exercising your RIGHTS in a state that is not a stop an identify state like WI...
    See Wisconsin Statutes § 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0968.pdf

  24. #24
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    This is an interesting thread. I had the experience that gives most of us an adrenalin rush, just last night. I took my wife out yesterday for an afternoon in LaCrosse (for those who don't know, she's been sick for the better part of the last 3 years). It is difficult to go anywhere because she is weak and there are other difficulties as well. So this was fun till the last few hours when it became to much and we headed for home.

    Half way home, she got a speck of something in her eye and we pulled into Galesville; More light and no traffic, to the convenience store with the idea of finding some water to wash it out. Store closed, no water. We made do with some water from the ice chest and a paper towel under the convenience store lights. This worked for Laurra but on the way out of town, just as I was pulling onto the highway, those iconic flashing red and blue lights lit up the night and a spotlight blinded me.

    The officer came to the window and introduced himself and asked if my wife was OK. (She had a wet cloth over her eye, I can see what it might have looked like. Bar closing, woman covering eye, we suspect there may have been a cell phone call in Galesville too, because we were outside the truck pouring water over her eye and she was bent over a bit in the closed convenience store parking lot. It was 1:15am too.)

    So, anyway, the deputy asked where we were coming from. I told him LaCrosse, for a night out and a little shopping. (at this point he hit his call button to bring up backup.) He looked at Laurra and asked her if she was OK, twice. Actually very concerned and in a kind and caring way. He then asked what I was doing in Galesville. At this point I wanted to know why we were stopped and why my being in Galesville was important. He said my headlight was out. Dang it! Got me there. Sure enough, my right headlight was out.

    I asked him why 'what I was doing in Galesville' was so important. He did not answer. I was a little stern and My wife, bless her sweetness, piped up and explained the medical stop to get the speck out of her eye and that she and I were both a little tired and ornery from a long day. At this point I asked if I could exit the vehicle and the officer said yes. Apparently he was satisfied that I had not harmed my wife or was a threat. Laurra has a really disarming manner.

    I looked at the light and let him know I would get right on that first thing tomorrow. At this point he noticed my gun belt with two stainless steel mags, a flashlight, and an empty holster. He was calm and asked if I was armed, I replied I was and he asked where the gun was. Just about then, a second and third cruiser went by on the opposite side of the highway and began making a turn. I said in a case, chamber cleared mag beside it. Right about then, he called off the back up.

    It was at this point that I was a bit taken aback. He said, so your an 'Open Carrier"? I said yes I am. He never mentioned the gun again but smiled and asked if I had ever had any negative responses from LEO, any harassment etc. I responded in the negative with the exception of Woodman's from where we just had come and made it clear even that had nothing to do with LEOs and that it had been settled in a OC friendly way in short order. He smiled and said it is kind of a scary deal to some folks to see the gun.

    He then told me he was a Training Officer for the dept. and had spoken to his men about OC and that it was not a reason to jump to conclusions or to arrest a person as it was legal in the state of Wisconsin. (I wish I had recorded this but completely forgot.) I was still a bit nervous but we talked at some length about the law and he agreed that it wasn't the ones carrying openly, the law abiding citizen, that you have to worry about. He teaches same.

    All in all, we had a great conversation, I was wearing my Wisconsin Carry T-Shirt and he asked about WI Carry, I told him about that and OC.org. as well as my blog THE RIGHT SITE. He wrote a warning, and came around and said good bye to my wife and the conversation continued for a bit and ended with my wife relating the story about the fellow in Spokane Washington who was beaten to death with a frozen tuna and how you now need a license to carry a tuna in Spokane now because of that tragic incident. We all had a good laugh at that one; my wife and I told him to be safe, and we went on our way. This is a good guy.

    It should be noted here that my wife was instrumental in this being a 'friendly' encounter. I was ornery with him and coming from me, it can be intimidating. She defused my orneriness and turned the stop into a consensual, friendly, interactive communication as opposed to something more costly.

    It bothered me that he was asking my whereabouts without a reason. Looking back on it now, he may have had a very good reason, one my wife and I support 100%. Abuse of any kind is a no go with us whether it be animal, wife or child. We did notice a husband being abused at Woodman's this very evening, on his way out the door, he implored his wife to please wait till they got outside to yell at him. Looking back at the checkout, we all shared a smile and chuckle.

    This LEO encounter was all good for us.

  25. #25
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by hardballer View Post


    It should be noted here that my wife was instrumental in this being a 'friendly' encounter. I was ornery with him and coming from me, it can be intimidating. She defused my orneriness and turned the stop into a consensual, friendly, interactive communication as opposed to something more costly.


    This LEO encounter was all good for us.
    It's funny how a good woman can bring us back to a better state of mind. My wife is very good at it as well...

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •