Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: Stop and Identify

  1. #1
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775

    Stop and Identify

    Does Wisconsin have a stop and identify law? i.e. If I am confronted while OCing in WI do I legally have to provide my name or any other information?

    I see section 968.24, but that is only supposed to apply when the officer reasonable suspetcs that such person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime.

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Nope. And, at a Terry stop (RAS) you only have to verbally give your name and address. No 'papers please' unless you are driving.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Yes, Wisconsin does have a stop and identify statute and it is § 968.24

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes

    And you are also right that the officer must have reasonable suspicion 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.

    Please note that he must be satisfied with a verbal identification absent authority to seize your documents. Better, don't carry them unless you're driving. (I have put my DL in the registration and insurance packet in the car and don't carry my DL normally.)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Nope. And, at a Terry stop (RAS) you only have to verbally give your name and address. No 'papers please' unless you are driving.
    I'm not sure you are even required to give them your name. Curious if anyone has insight on this. If I don't have to show ID why would i need to give them my name? Why show they be able to add any comments to my file if I'm doing nothing wrong?

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    As Doug's link said:

    968.24
    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 conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    Yes but ONLY if you are suspected of currently, about to, or have committed a crime. If an leo trys to engage me in a concentual conversation he gets no conversation much less my name.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    No, you are not required to even speak in a consensual conversation. A perfectly adequate response to a request for identification is "Am I free to leave?"

    If he wants to make the conversation non-consensual then it becomes a detention arrest and your Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights kick in his teeth via § 968.24 reasonable suspicion. "I consent to no search or seizure. Call an attorney. I invoke my right to silence." Then ****! He will search you. He will seize your papers. He may establish your ID. You may be incarcerated. Your firearm will be seized. You will have to sue for its return.

    Note that there is no requirement to carry documentation of identification while armed. You have a right to be armed. Your drivers license establishes your privilege to drive.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 08-20-2010 at 07:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Its good public relations to be nice to cops whenever possible. They are just trying to get through their day and back home again like all of us.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Its good public relations to be nice to cops whenever possible. They are just trying to get through their day and back home again like all of us.
    So, what are you saying? That invoking your rights is not being nice? I consider harassment from a government agent without reason as harassment.
    So If I am doing nothing outside of the laws as written, why should I be stopped and questioned?

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    So, what are you saying? That invoking your rights is not being nice?
    I think what he is saying is that you can be invoke your rights and still be nice.

    I'm very polite to police. (you never know what their dash cam catches)

    I politely decline to give my name

    I politely decline to answer questions

    I politely ask if I'm free to leave

    I politely repeat that process
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted by Citizen to avoid confusion
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-21-2010 at 02:04 AM.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Frank chose not to talk with police.

    The police DID arrest him.

    Frank did NOT have to sue to get his firearm back, that will differ with each municipality.

    WCI, and Frank DID sue, $10K later the Racine police department has been educated.

    I agree with Nik, politely REFUSE, ask if you are free to go, REPEAT. Once the cuffs come out, NOT ONE PEEP, that is what lawyers are for.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775
    I guess I just don't know if I should provide my name/address if a LEO confronts me while OCing. Anything past name/address will not come out of my mouth.

    I just don't want to get arrested for obstruction for not giving my name/address if I am legally obligated to give name/address.

  14. #14
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    I've thought about this subject a lot. I'm of the opinion that I'd be gambling to assume they didn't have RAS. I'll be cordial and provide name/address, but no ID.

    Other than that, about the only other thing I would say when asked why I'm carrying is "because Sherman and Doyle prevented me from concealing it.......".

  15. #15
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by TyGuy View Post
    I guess I just don't know if I should provide my name/address if a LEO confronts me while OCing. Anything past name/address will not come out of my mouth.

    I just don't want to get arrested for obstruction for not giving my name/address if I am legally obligated to give name/address.
    This battle has already been won.

    YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION FOR REFUSING TO GIVE YOU NAME/ADDRESS.

    REMAINING SILENT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR OBSTRUCTION.

    Case law proves it so...

    “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted by Citizen to avoid confusion
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-21-2010 at 02:05 AM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted by Citizen to avoid confusion
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-21-2010 at 02:05 AM.

  18. #18
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I agree.

    One thing I might add is the polite refusal of consent. This throws the responsibility onto the cop for actually having genuine reasonable suspicion. You can always find out after the detention whether he really had valid reasonable suspicion and raise cane in a formal complaint or lawsuit.

    Suggested polite refusal:

    OCer: "I will tell you my name and address since you have demanded it officer. However, I do not consent. I am only doing it because you have demanded it."

    Even better if it is an identity document demand. That is illegal in many states.
    Remaining silent will NEVER get you in trouble.

    not in Wisconsin (yet)
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Sounds good. But, I wasn't born yesterday. I'm betting there is another legal angle. While obstruction may not be the offense for silence, I am betting there is another penalty. The "law" just wouldn't leave that loophole open for very long.

    Is there a penalty for refusing to verbally identify yourself right in the stop-and-identify statute?
    I've got 10,000 and an acknowledgement from the Racine city counsel that says refusal to give your name is NOT grounds for obstruction...

    Don't lie... Don't give a false name... SILENCE is never a crime (yet) in Wisconsin


    http://www.youtube.com/wisconsincarr.../1/PuiO8tixuKY
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted by Citizen to avoid confusion
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-21-2010 at 02:05 AM.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    deleted by Citizen to avoid confusion
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-21-2010 at 02:06 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    I've got 10,000 and an acknowledgement from the Racine city counsel that says refusal to give your name is NOT grounds for obstruction...

    Don't lie... Don't give a false name... SILENCE is never a crime (yet) in Wisconsin


    http://www.youtube.com/wisconsincarr.../1/PuiO8tixuKY

    So even if the officer makes up some BS to come up with "RAS", and you remain silent, can you still be dragged in as "John Doe" and held for a period of time? And gun confiscated? That's the hassle I'd like to avoid, if possible.

  23. #23
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    This battle has already been won.

    YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION FOR REFUSING TO GIVE YOU NAME/ADDRESS.

    REMAINING SILENT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR OBSTRUCTION.

    Case law proves it so...

    “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”

    Nik,
    Did 968.24 exist at the time of Henes v. Morrissey? Or did 968.24 come later? I was reading this:

    http://www.cityofmadison.com/police/...Summer2004.pdf

    But again, I don't know when 968.24 came about, and if that "fixed" the loophole thing.


    ETA:
    Nevermind, I read that pdf a bit more closely. While 968.24 is on the books, that WI Supreme court case you cited negated it.

    "What impact, if any, does the Hiibel decision have on police
    officers in Wisconsin? Barring any legislative action, the
    answer is none. While there seems to be a parallel between
    the Nevada statutes at issue in Hiibel and Wisconsin’s
    similar statutes (946.41 and 968.24), a Wisconsin Supreme
    Court decision interpreting these statutes forecloses this
    result."

    And further....

    "However, Wisconsin law
    currently does not allow officers to arrest citizens simply for
    failing to identify themselves. If the legislature amends the
    obstructing statute to expressly criminalize this conduct, the
    Hiibel decision makes it clear that the statute will be
    constitutional. Absent some legislative action, however,
    officers are not able to make arrest simply based on a
    suspect’s failure to identify themselves."
    Last edited by xenophon; 08-21-2010 at 12:47 AM.

  24. #24
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    968.24 was enacted a couple of years prior to the Henes opinion. The Madison PD legal update from 2004 regarding refusal to provide identification continues to be accurate. If only the know-it-all Racine Police officer had been reading MPD's legal updates when talking to Frank.........

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    OK. I'm convinced. I'm going to go higher in the thread and delete my posts so as to not cause confusion for any new readers.

    Thanks for the scholarship, fellas.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •