• 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.

talking to police - hypothetical question

xenophon

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

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.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
 

kd6sxa

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
91
Location
Quad Cities, Iowa, USA
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.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
§ 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.

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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
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/united-states-of-america-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:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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"?
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
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.
 

range rat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
I d

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?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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:
M

McX

Guest
Him stopping you is an accusation!

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

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 
Top